The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket
The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time.
But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded. Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX, even if they have issues with their job...
[1] Vega launch satellites to Sun synchronous orbit, satellites here are earth observers and usually a few tonnes at most, the majority much smaller. Launches here are very infrequent, so matching spacecraft is difficult. Falcon 9 isn't currently equipped with an appropriate fairing to do dual launch like this without satellites built to stack (which most aren't). Falcon 9 might haul 9 tonnes, but you might not be able to find 9 tonnes of spacecraft to that orbit. Vega payloads are also kept in a clean environment and fairing, something SpaceX hasn't demonstrated. Horizontal integration can be an issue. ITAR issues... The list goes on.
Are you trolling? Most rocket platforms have had a rate of failure. The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had launch failures as well. SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.
>But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded...
NASA doesn't build rockets. They have always outsourced the job to aerospace companies.
> Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX
I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX.
EDIT - changed my wording from "very checkered history" to "had launch failures as well" - in my rush to respond, I went from memory and checking the facts found my words too strong.
The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had a very checkered history.
Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega. They are two very different project, for different payloads. And look at the table of success and failure rate of the Ariane 5 itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianne_5
SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.
Clearly that's not the case.
I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX.
The Falcon 9 never exploded. So far it has made 11 successful flights to orbit, it lost an engine mid-flight, once, Grasshopper made 8 successful hops, and G9R Dev1, a three engined first stage with grid fins, self-destructed on its 5th flight, probably while trying to do something no rocket has ever done. Note that SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said last year that she feels the engineers are not pushing the reusability testing enough because there were no failures yet.
NASA is a terrible rocket design bureau good only for pork barrel, which is what is has been doing for decades. NASA had to admit that developing Falcon 9 (100% privately funded by SpaceX and private investors) would have cost more than twice if it was done by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf).
The point of it is that the US government finds it politically inexpedient and costly having to pay Russia or United Launch Alliance[1] (who sometimes use Russian engines anyway[2]) in order to get people and equipment to space. SpaceX is an obvious path away from the Russia Space Agency / ULA.
For things that the government wants to launch from the US, having a second US-based option for space launch will get the US out of the bilateral monopoly that exists with ULA.
This is so incorrect it's almost funny. For the record:
First: Falcon 9 so far has 11/11 successful launches. This was not a Falcon 9, this was a test flight of a sub-orbital development vehicle (F9R-"Dev").
Second: "Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads...". Your Wikipedia link says maximum payload to LEO is 1,963 kg, while Wikipedia quotes Falcon9's maximum payload to LEO is 13,150 kg.
And how much do they charge for those 1963kg? Wikipedia quotes 32 million euros per launch, or $42M, corresponding to $21,000/kg, for the Vega, and $4,109/kg for the F9...
This was an auto-destruct, it didn't just randomly explode due to engine failure. Some other parameters of the test launch were either incorrectly configured or went out of bounds and the flight computer destroyed it. Rockets are hard, sometimes you have to fail fast.
Well actually NASA, like any beaurocracy, grew so large that rockets were costing billions of dollars to launch a new rocket. Without market forces to keep the costs in check, no one thought this a problem and contracts were issued based on paperwork driven development.
Comments
The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket
The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time.
But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded. Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX, even if they have issues with their job...
[1] Vega launch satellites to Sun synchronous orbit, satellites here are earth observers and usually a few tonnes at most, the majority much smaller. Launches here are very infrequent, so matching spacecraft is difficult. Falcon 9 isn't currently equipped with an appropriate fairing to do dual launch like this without satellites built to stack (which most aren't). Falcon 9 might haul 9 tonnes, but you might not be able to find 9 tonnes of spacecraft to that orbit. Vega payloads are also kept in a clean environment and fairing, something SpaceX hasn't demonstrated. Horizontal integration can be an issue. ITAR issues... The list goes on.
Are you trolling? Most rocket platforms have had a rate of failure. The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had launch failures as well. SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.
>But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded...
NASA doesn't build rockets. They have always outsourced the job to aerospace companies.
> Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX
I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-...
EDIT - changed my wording from "very checkered history" to "had launch failures as well" - in my rush to respond, I went from memory and checking the facts found my words too strong.
Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega. They are two very different project, for different payloads. And look at the table of success and failure rate of the Ariane 5 itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianne_5
Clearly that's not the case.
From that interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-indu...
Elon Musk: NASA called and told us that we'd won a $1.5 billion contract. And I couldn't even hold the phone, I just blurted out, "I love you guys."
Scott Pelley: They saved you.
Elon Musk: Yeah, they did.
> Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega.
I stand corrected. The point is that the ESA's rocket program is far from flawless as your "3 from 3" post above suggests.
>> SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.
> Clearly that's not the case.
From the article, this was a TEST flight. Exploding rockets is an expected part of the development process.
In that context, NASA was the customer. They didn't bail them out. It wasn't charity.
The Falcon 9 never exploded. So far it has made 11 successful flights to orbit, it lost an engine mid-flight, once, Grasshopper made 8 successful hops, and G9R Dev1, a three engined first stage with grid fins, self-destructed on its 5th flight, probably while trying to do something no rocket has ever done. Note that SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said last year that she feels the engineers are not pushing the reusability testing enough because there were no failures yet.
NASA is a terrible rocket design bureau good only for pork barrel, which is what is has been doing for decades. NASA had to admit that developing Falcon 9 (100% privately funded by SpaceX and private investors) would have cost more than twice if it was done by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf).
The point of it is that the US government finds it politically inexpedient and costly having to pay Russia or United Launch Alliance[1] (who sometimes use Russian engines anyway[2]) in order to get people and equipment to space. SpaceX is an obvious path away from the Russia Space Agency / ULA.
For things that the government wants to launch from the US, having a second US-based option for space launch will get the US out of the bilateral monopoly that exists with ULA.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance [2] http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1408/20rd180delivery/
You uh, do realize that this was a test-bed rocket right? Designed to do experimental things?
Also, I was not aware of any Falcon 9 exploding previously. What on earth are you talking about?
Even I agree this might just be a experimental? for which they might not have permission for. or may be i am speculating
This is so incorrect it's almost funny. For the record:
First: Falcon 9 so far has 11/11 successful launches. This was not a Falcon 9, this was a test flight of a sub-orbital development vehicle (F9R-"Dev").
Second: "Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads...". Your Wikipedia link says maximum payload to LEO is 1,963 kg, while Wikipedia quotes Falcon9's maximum payload to LEO is 13,150 kg.
And how much do they charge for those 1963kg? Wikipedia quotes 32 million euros per launch, or $42M, corresponding to $21,000/kg, for the Vega, and $4,109/kg for the F9...
This was an auto-destruct, it didn't just randomly explode due to engine failure. Some other parameters of the test launch were either incorrectly configured or went out of bounds and the flight computer destroyed it. Rockets are hard, sometimes you have to fail fast.
Well actually NASA, like any beaurocracy, grew so large that rockets were costing billions of dollars to launch a new rocket. Without market forces to keep the costs in check, no one thought this a problem and contracts were issued based on paperwork driven development.