Space X

?
They have an amazing success rate.

Whoever made this graph should be gassed

>I don't get it.
You're right about that.

>I wonder who could be behind this shitty tread

Here's a better graph of just launch intervals. Relatively recent.

Because they are testing new designs. They are building larger more efficient rockets.

they have another launch tomorrow.

I can't wait for the first Falcon Heavy launch with all 3 boosters landing. I'll take vacation time to see that in person.

it will be two rtls and one drone ship landing. So you'll only be able to see two boosters land, with the respective six sonic booms between them

>numales in charge of going to space
that's why

its ok, i can only cum so much in the Florida heat before it becomes dangerous

>they're finally doing things for real now.
They put their first commercial satellite in orbit in 2009. They've been "doing things for real" for the better part of a decade.

Their success rate is nearly as bad as Proton's.

>>>/reddit/

>100% success this year
>this year
kek
SpaceX success rate is one of the worst in the industry
Even the Chinese and the Poos are better

Proton has a launch heritage of half a century and 400+ launches. They're not still working out the bugs, they're just sloppy. Falcon 9's done better than Ariane 5 at the same age, despite being an experimental platform for reusable rocketry.

They only look less than stellar if you compare them to Atlas V and Delta IV: two vehicles they haven't even tried to make commercially competitive during their operational phase. If SpaceX spent an extra $100 million checking everything out on each flight, they probably wouldn't have a single launch failure either.

>They're not still working out the bugs
Falcon 9 has had 36 launches and the first 19 were not failures
They are not still "working out the bugs" and if they are, they should not be flying payloads on them.

>They only look less than stellar if you compare them to Atlas V and Delta IV
and Ariane 5, and H-2A, and half of China's launchers and all of India's launchers, and Soyuz...

>If SpaceX spent an extra $100 million checking everything out on each flight, they probably wouldn't have a single launch failure either.
It's not a matter of lack of money, it's a matter of lack of skill at SpaceX to recognize and fix problems.

How do you end up at such number?
Failed landing= failed launch ?

The fuck are you talking about?

Had this done and I had a feeling this thread would have a good laugh at this

Sorry i was retarded.
One of first falcons had a partial failure but so did many other rockets carrying payloads like Ariane5 that failed 4 times in first 14 flights

>They are not still "working out the bugs"
Rocket life cycles are longer than that. There are usually a few problems that come up once in twenty flights, or once in fifty, that they only find out by flying 20 or 50 times.

>and if they are, they should not be flying payloads on them.
A childish attitude. There's always risk in rocket launch. Even Atlas V had a very close call recently when their booster shut down prematurely, and they only reached orbit at all because of the light payload.

>and Ariane 5, and H-2A, and half of China's launchers and all of India's launchers, and Soyuz...
Nope, not at the same age.

You're looking at the percentage of failures of old rockets, rather than the total number of failures, and at what stage of the rocket's life cycle they occurred.

Ariane 5 has had 4 failures, all within the first 14 flights and first 6 years of operation.

India's GSLV had 5 failures out of 11 launches.

China's LM3 had 3 failures out of 13 launches.

H-IIA was a derivative of H-II, which had 2 failures out of 7 launches.

>It's not a matter of lack of money, it's a matter of lack of skill at SpaceX to recognize and fix problems.
A ridiculous claim, entirely ungrounded in reality. They haven't repeated a flaw once.

>efficient
that word doesn't mean what you think it means, brainlet.

>Rocket life cycles are longer than that. There are usually a few problems that come up once in twenty flights, or once in fifty, that they only find out by flying 20 or 50 times.
most rockets never reach 50 flights
by your logic, the only rocket for which its statistical reliability has been established is the R-7

>A childish attitude. There's always risk in rocket launch. Even Atlas V had a very close call recently when their booster shut down prematurely, and they only reached orbit at all because of the light payload.
that mission had enough margin to be successful
SpaceX CRS-1 however, was a failure for a similar reason because it didn't have the margin

>Nope, not at the same age.
>You're looking at the percentage of failures of old rockets, rather than the total number of failures, and at what stage of the rocket's life cycle they occurred.
>Ariane 5 has had 4 failures, all within the first 14 flights and first 6 years of operation.
>India's GSLV had 5 failures out of 11 launches.
>China's LM3 had 3 failures out of 13 launches.
Like I said, Falcon 9 was reliable early on when it was still new, and its reliability has decreased over time. There other launch failures, Ariane V in particular, are due to new rockets/versions.

>H-IIA was a derivative of H-II, which had 2 failures out of 7 launches.
Falcon 9 is a derivative of Falcon 1, which had 3 failures out of 5 launches.

>A ridiculous claim, entirely ungrounded in reality. They haven't repeated a flaw once.
They refused to fix flaws pointed out by NASA after CRS-7, and instead blamed the issue on a faulty supplier, against NASA's findings.

Both CRS-7 and AMOS-6 were COPV failures, meaning they haven't learned to make the things safely.

he's right though

>One of first falcons had a partial failure
Falcon 9 has had only one true launch failure, when a strut from a reputable aerospace supplier failed at far below the rated load. Before that incident, nobody individually tested each strut prior to installation, including ULA, they only do statistical sampling, as SpaceX had done, then they trust the supplier. That was a wake-up call for the whole US aerospace industry, not a failure particularly attributable to SpaceX. Anyone could have got caught out by that, and it was only by chance that it happened to SpaceX and not ULA.

It was about like going for a test drive in a brand new vehicle and getting in a crash because the brakes suddenly totally fail: shocking as hell, and the driver's basically blameless.

The "partial failure" was in fact NASA exercising a contract option which allowed them to choose to ditch the secondary payload. The upper stage still had the propellant necessary to insert it in the correct orbit, and SpaceX was entirely willing to do so, so it's inappropriate to classify this even as a "partial failure".

The explosion on the pad was also not a launch failure, it was a testing mishap. The customer was ultimately responsible for the decision to have the payload on top of the rocket during prelaunch testing, which was done primarily to reduce costs.

You usually don't hear about payload, vehicle, or pad damage due to mishaps on the ground. The uncommonly public fireworks don't change the nature of the incident. This is something more comparable to Blue Origin blowing up the prototype of their new engine for ULA on the test stand than to an actual launch failure, particularly when you take into account the newness of the propellant densification technique.

In short, the real score is at one F9 launch failure, for which SpaceX can't reasonably be held accountable, out of 36 launches. Their reliability is top notch.

Unless your criteria for "failure" is "the customer did not consider the effort successful" then you are clinically insane.

>The "partial failure" was in fact NASA exercising a contract option which allowed them to choose to ditch the secondary payload. The upper stage still had the propellant necessary to insert it in the correct orbit, and SpaceX was entirely willing to do so, so it's inappropriate to classify this even as a "partial failure".
SpaceX should never have put the Orbcomm sat on the launch if this was ever an option. It's a failure.

Falcon 9 has had 4 failures:
>DEMO1
uncontrolled roll at the end of second stage flight
>CRS-1
failed to insert Orbcomm satellite into a stable orbit
>CRS-7
exploded on ascent
>AMOS-6
exploded on the pad

>SpaceX CRS-1 however, was a failure for a similar reason because it didn't have the margin
They did, though. Their primary customer exercised an option to dump the secondary payload. If ULA had been attempting to fly a secondary payload of significant mass on their Atlas V near-miss, they likely would have lost not only it, but the primary payload.

>Falcon 9 is a derivative of Falcon 1, which had 3 failures out of 5 launches.
Not remotely in the same sense as H-IIA is derived from H-II, where the relationship is like that between Falcon 9 1.1 and Falcon 9 1.0.

>Both CRS-7 and AMOS-6 were COPV failures, meaning they haven't learned to make the things safely.
Bullshit. CRS-7 was a faulty strut. The COPV was fine until the strut let it go.

>Unless your criteria for "failure" is "the customer did not consider the effort successful" then you are clinically insane.
We're talking about launch failures, not customer fee-fees.

>SpaceX should never have put the Orbcomm sat on the launch if this was ever an option.
Again, a totally childish attitude. A launch service with reduced probability of being completed still has value, and Orbcomm derived useful testing data from having their sat deployed even in the decaying orbit.

>>DEMO1
>uncontrolled roll at the end of second stage flight
Ridiculous reaching. Pretty much any payload would have the attitude control to correct it after deployment. Launches always vary somewhat in the payload propulsion requirements after deployment.

>failed to insert Orbcomm satellite into a stable orbit
The vehicle did not attempt the insertion. Dumped the secondary payload at primary customer's option according to contract when the vehicle was capable of performing the insertion.

>exploded on the pad
A pre-launch testing incident. Not a launch failure. You do pre-launch testing so you don't get launch failures. Customer put the payload at risk in testing at their own option.

seems like the anti musk brigade is still alive and well...

>corrections to lies and propaganda
>"anti musk brigade"

They did, though. Their primary customer exercised an option to dump the secondary payload.
Again, they shouldn't have flown the extra payload if this was an option.
>If ULA had been attempting to fly a secondary payload of significant mass on their Atlas V near-miss, they likely would have lost not only it, but the primary payload.
What? You're inventing imaginary ULA failures to make SpaceX look better now?

>Not remotely in the same sense as H-IIA is derived from H-II, where the relationship is like that between Falcon 9 1.1 and Falcon 9 1.0.
different engines, boosters, tanks, insulation, second stage, practically everything
F9 and F1 are more similar

>Bullshit. CRS-7 was a faulty strut.
According to the SpaceX report, which NASA did not agree with.

>We're talking about launch failures, not customer fee-fees.
Moving the goal posts. You were the first person ITT to say "launch" failure

>A launch service with reduced probability of being completed still has value
So you're admitting that it was a legitimate payload and also a failure?

> Pretty much any payload would have the attitude control to correct it after deployment.
lmao you are fucking retarded m8

>Dumped the secondary payload at primary customer's option according to contract when the vehicle was capable of performing the insertion.
Still a failure. They should have chosen another launch provider like ULA.

>A pre-launch testing incident. Not a launch failure.
It destroyed the customer's satellite. Stop being an imbecile.

>Customer put the payload at risk in testing at their own option.
No different than choosing a launch provider. Even SpaceX is less retarded than you; they no longer have this option with their rockets.

AMOS-6 was a launch failure.
It failed to launch.

this reliability meme is annoying

people are latching onto these numbers like god himself chiseled them out of gold in a stupid sans font
look, I can be a ULA-type shill but for spacex as well: So far, reused rockets have a 100% success rate. Everyone else BTFO

>So far, reused rockets have a 100% success rate.

that was a new production booster. Even so, SpaceX's reused rockerts are 100% so far.

>that was a new production booster.
?
reused SRB casings, reused orbiter and engines

>SpaceX's reused rockerts are 100% so far.
wow 2 out of 2 how amazing

>reused orbitor
>relevant to stage one failure
???

...

...what?

high effort bait I think

>and it was only by chance that it happened to SpaceX and not ULA.

Unless it was sabotage

>If they have the theory worked out why is it so hard to build it in reality?

Let me guess. You're one of those academic types.

its always sad to watch the onset of dementia

There were failures of AtlasV that left payloads short of target orbit but USAF deemed it close enough to sacrifice years of orbit life to get to GTO back in 2007.That would be a failure but according to ULA metric this means success.

Also that is true that NASA had other conclusion on CRS7 and back in 2014 there was a near failure of COPV that delayed 1.1 flights.In general they have problems with COPV in the second stage but this allows for the mass ratio on the second stage vs a more conventional all metal tanks

>There were failures of AtlasV that left payloads short of target orbit but USAF deemed it close enough to sacrifice years of orbit life to get to GTO back in 2007.
And?
This failure was less significant than any SpaceX failure, and even when considering it Atlas V success rate is still 98.6%

>That would be a failure but according to ULA metric this means success.
Actually it was a success according the the customer, NRO.

>Also that is true that NASA had other conclusion on CRS7 and back in 2014 there was a near failure of COPV that delayed 1.1 flights.In general they have problems with COPV in the second stage but this allows for the mass ratio on the second stage vs a more conventional all metal tanks
ok?
lowering mass fractions is inherent to rocketry, not mastering this inherent problem is no excuse for low reliability

Why did you even bother posting this thread without do any research on them in the last 6 months?

Fuck, people are stupid.

Oh hey look, two launches and landings in the same weekend.

next launch is now tentatively set for Sunday

expendable, unfortunately

Falcon 9 has now successfully launched 9 times in the first half of this year.

The most Atlas V has ever launched in a full year was 9 times. This year they've launched 3 times so far.

The most Ariane 5 has ever launched in a full year was 7 times. They've also launched 3 times so far.

The most Proton ever launched in a full year was 14 times, and the most they've launched since Falcon 9 started flying was 9 times. Proton has only launched once this year.

SpaceX is starting to dominate, not just in contracts but in actual performed flights. So far this year, Falcon 9 has outflown its three main competitors put together.

and that's only with two pads. Soon to be 4....

The number of pads isn't really key, except for avoiding interruptions when they do upgrades. There's no reason you can't launch ten times per day from the same pad, you just have to get set up to do it.

Conventionally, pad design and operations are very sloppy in some ways. They simply let each launch break things, because it's cheaper to fix each time than to build it so it doesn't break. They let each payload occupy the pad while the customer's technicians mess with it, because they don't have enough launches to do for it to be a problem.

It's all part of the expendable-rocket mindset. What's really weird is that a generation has done this for their whole careers, so they don't think it can be done any other way.

Reusable-rocket mindset is building a pad that can be used many times before maintenance is required, where the rocket can be set up and launched quickly, and where, when a payload has problems, it can be taken aside and worked on while other payloads are launched ahead of it.

(boca chica)

The Soviets blew up rockets over and over again. Their Saturn V equivalent, the N1, ended up being literally nothing but a series of explosions over and over again until they trashed it.

Those faggots are in a constant state of aggressive design/process adjustment and improvement of the F9's capabilities.

The final iteration (for now) of the rocket, Block 5, hasn't even flown yet, although its differences from previous blocks are more geared toward reusability rather than further performance upgrades.

With almost no two F9s being the same so far, any assessment of overall reliability is going to be flawed. Jump to whatever conclusions you want after a reasonable number of missions with the 'frozen' Block 5 design.

check this out
spacexstats.xyz/

desu elon lost his edgy

> So why can't these faggots get their rockets to work properly
> if all the theory was already more or less figured out

> if the theory was figured out

BECAUSE THEORY DOESNT MEAN JACK SHIT TO ENGINEERS YOU BASEMENT DWELLING AUTIST

Well, there is Russia...

posting in a ULA shill thread

so basically it's because engineers are too stupid?

Yes, we should have had rockets to this level in the 1970s.

engineers, being more practical, are also more easily swayed by the finance side of things

a lot of finance analysts have engineering degrees

huh? They've had two losses in the last 10 years.

Is that Bezos?

static fire tomorrow probably. Then after Intelsat goes up, there will be a long break at the range. They are probably going to get in a huge amount of pad word. maybe slick40 is further along than we though?

>SRB casings
SRBs on Falcon?

You are a certified faggot

Certified faggot here. Minor point of clarification. The guy you're responding to is actually a certified double faggot retard. Important distinction.

And the Nazis blew up heaps of V2s and test beds too before getting it working

>Actually it was a success according the the customer, NRO.
So was the first spacex failure of secondary payload on CRS1.
Atlas is the most reliable rocket by far in operation today there is no question about that.Only nuclear certified in US fleet but for most payloads it is too expensive.

The COPV issue was a fuckup from SpaceX because according to recent documents for commercial crew they pushed the faster prop load while knowing about liner buckling issues and this caused AMOS6 explosion.Currently there is a fix to this and helium should not be a problem anymore but with the amount of stuff that changes in these rockets a new failure might arise from some unknown unknown

idk much about rockets and stuff, but elon musk is a visionary.

I read zero to one, a book written by a founder of paypal, of which musk was also a founder.

shit blew my mind.

for the first time in my life i actually have a role model

you must be a brainlet

im in mensa with an IQ over 130.
im also gonna be a doctor in less than 6 months.

so no, i'm pretty well educated. but the ability to bring something from merely an abstraction to a reality is truly inspiring.
these guys started with nothing but an idea and ended up selling out consecutive multi million dollar businesses.

it takes more than mere intelligence to do that.

don't fucking mathispost here.

You don't want to know. don't google him. it's not dementia, the guy is 30 or 40. he's just an asshole.

there's nothing impressive about paypal you faggot

> the ability to bring something from merely an abstraction to a reality is truly inspiring
yeah, every other inventor and scientist in the world does it. if you want to get inspired, get inspired by someone who really did something important.

>muh IQ, MUH mensa
what an insecure brainlet. I know drug addicts with a higher IQ than that kek

the insecurity you're giving off is immense

right, good for you.
but i did something useful with that intelligence.

scientists and inventors only deal with natural obstacles.
all they have to do is take something they think up and figure out how to bring it into existence.

businesses require that, plus figuring out how to deal with getting funding, investor interests, consumer market problems etc.
you are not only fighting a battle against natural boundries to bring your idea to reality, but also the whole current state of the world. You are literally taking on the world with just an idea, and lever nothing but your inherent traits, experience and adaptability to bring it into existence.
there is nothing i know of that could be harder.

scientists have it easy. once they have an idea, they figure out how to get to it, then they just work on it till they get it. business is not so easy, just because of the sheer number of shifting factors involved.

she be leaning

Why did they use CGI in the background for that rocket?

...

...

One day people will live on dumpsters inside used rocket sections.

static fire successful

9 days, three launches, oh baby

locals in Kazakistan are doing that right now with Russia stages. They scrap some of them and keep others.

...

Bretty gool.
But not from space.

...

Any purpose other than decorative?

Is SpaceX the Nikola Tesla of space transport?

Rather Elon is Edison.
Tesla was a useles entrepreneur.

>Thinking theory doesn't perfectly predict reality

But it does, leaving room for error. The error / failures that are possible aren't preventable with current tech.

is this alright? or intentional? please explain this