SpaceX Completes Its Seventh Successful Mission of 2018 With Launch of CRS-14 (youtube.com) 24
Longtime Slashdot reader lalleglad writes: SpaceX today launched a Falcon 9 with its 14th Resupply Services mission. I saw it went well, and I hope it will also attach to the International Space Station (ISS) in good order. Incidentally, it carries the Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM), which is an European Space Agency (ESA) project to investigate Earth-to-space lighting and thunder. Let's hope that it will enable better weather movement understanding, and for us plain people, better weather forecasts! "The Falcon 9 rocket, whose first stage launched ISS supplies last August, fired nine Merlin main engines again to roar from Launch Complex 40 at 4:30 p.m.," reports Florida Today. "Ten minutes later, the unmanned Dragon capsule, which launched to the ISS two years earlier, floated free of the rocket's upper stage to start a two-day journey back to the orbiting research complex. It was the second time a recycled Falcon 9 and Dragon had launched together, and the 11th time in just over a year that SpaceX had re-launched a used -- or what the company prefers to call 'flight proven' -- rocket." CNBC notes that the CRS-14 launch was the company's seventh successful mission this year. You can watch the recorded livestream of the launch here.
Reliability.. (Score:5, Informative)
So, SpaceX now seems to have 52 Falcon 9 launches, with one inflight failure (launch 19) (and one preflight testing failure).
The Space Shuttle had 135 launches, with one launch failure (and one return failure)
They are not doing too bad, for something not human-rated.
Re:Reliability.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Reliability.. (Score:2)
Yes, but keep in mind that the shuttle's failure rate was well below the planned for failure rate by more than an order of magnitude.
I think you mean well above, right? Or do you really think they expected 20 of them to blow up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And one partial failure (Launch 4, CRS-1, lost one booster engine, primary mission succeeded but secondary payload was not delivered to a useful orbit.)
One could argue that Full Thrust (v1.2) is enough of an evolution from the early Falcon 9s that we should keep separate score for this model, especially as this is the model which will be used for the foreseeable future. Then the score would be 32 launches with one pre-launch failure.
I feel that a third major failure any time soon will have a heavy psycholog
Re:Reliability.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's not like Falcons need to get liked on Facebook. The people that make decisions on multimillion dollar satellite launches are a bit better grounded in statistics than the average twitter user.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is well made. And the people who sell satellite launch insurance are even better grounded in statistics.
Sorry, I meant to write "news media", not "new media".
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is doing great - although that greatness is going into funding development on the BFR. Tesla is looking shaky. If it goes bankrupt, I expect the battery and solar panel parts would survive under new ownership.
Re:Elon's little empire is going bankrupt (Score:5, Informative)
What financial statements? SpaceX is a privately held company. And it's on a roll.
You're thinking of Tesla. They already went bankwupt [twitter.com] ;)
Seriously, there was literally no news with a long-term impact [model3ownersclub.com] that affected this slide, apart from the Moody's statement, which was itself based on no news with a long-term impact. The plunge in price was due to a surge in short positions based on a bunch of short term bad news. And the liquidity arguments are absurd [model3ownersclub.com].
In broader terms, the bear argument is that Tesla is not going to be able to pay off 900-and-something million in bonds due in spring 2019. Not a typo: 2019. And if that sounds like a lot of money, remember that even in Q1, Tesla's gross profit (quarterly gross profit) was $2,2 billion dollars. Tesla is already producing twice as many vehicles per week as they averaged in 2017. Averaged over Q1? No, it was only the upgrades during recent Fremont downtime that pushed them up that high. But it's important to remember that that gain is just *one* quarter of production acceleration. Even if you want to pretend it's a burst rate (in which it's probably more like 2500/wk extrapolated in order to have the whole week average 2000/wk), and that the 2000/wk is really smoke and mirrors and sustained is really more like 1000-1500/wk, a quarter ago the sustained rate was ~250-450/wk with a burst rate of 1000/wk
Yes, there's also Tesla's SGA expenses which in Q4 were roughly equal to their gross profits, but those don't grow linearly with gross profits; SGA expenses have to scale up before production and sales, and there's no reason to expect SGA growth to anywhere near match gross profit growth. Even at present, SGA is roughly equal to gross profit; the losses were because of ~$1,4B in R&D, which A) can be cut at any time, and B) doesn't increase at all with production scaleup.
Tesla had $3,4B cash on hand as of Q4. Go ahead and subtract the ~200M due in November and call it $3,2B. Now remember what was previously written: after the Fremont downtime earlier this month now up to double the rate as in 2017. Does that mean double the revenue? No, it's even better than that, because they have operations costs and depreciation on their production hardware regardless of how many vehicles it turns out; this means that they simultaneously grow the margin as they scaleup.
This isn't going to dramatically alter Q1's figures, although the quarterly loss will be smaller than Q4's. But it's going to have a profound impact in Q2, and depending on the rate of growth during Q2, even more profound in Q3 and Q4.
Of course the bears live in another world where Tesla is actually secretly super broke and going "bankwupt" tomorrow and will never produce anything and blah blah blah. We know this. TTAC's Tesla Deathwatch is dead, so long live Seeking Alpha, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Elon's little empire is going bankrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Out if interest I had a look at the way spaceX is funded [quora.com] or at least seed funded and it's clear that Musk has risked the fortune he earned from paypal (100 million) to get spaceX going. There is no doubt there is risk however he has his own skin in the game so I've never understood why people give him a hard time, just because he is living every kids dream and having a go? It say's a lot about the hater mentality that wants us to sit around doing nothing, not wearing deodorant criticizing people reaching for the stars.
I can't see him doing this without some sort of government funding and the la times seems to thinks so [latimes.com] however I don't really see this as grounds for criticism, how could he do it without government funding and contracts?
Should Musk expect government funding [spacenews.com] to continue to develop rocket systems via spaceX. Why not? If his companies are meeting the specified goals to receive funding then why shouldn't they receive funding. We've been told for years by Boeing and Lockheed Martin that re-usable launch systems were not possible however clearly that is not true.
So while I don't think I fall into the category of being a fanboy, I certainly don't want to see him fail. So if you are going to make up allegations about the companies financial state, let's have a look at what you've got so we can evaluate it.
One thing is for sure, whatever you think of the guy, Musk has generated a lot of interest in space flight. There is nothing boring about a pair of launch boosters making a double sonic boom before they land.
Why didn't they show the barge landing? (Score:2)
You could see the barge, and the first stage, in the video feed, so they were going for it.
But they didn't even mention it, and it doesn't show up in a search.
WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it was that new barge they just brought into use, the "I Always Look Fat In Photos", and they skipped the close-ups out of politeness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They stated that they weren't going to attempt stage 1 recovery.
Re: Why didn't they show the barge landing? (Score:2)
They stated in the video feed that it was going to be an "experimental landing" without an attempt to recover, which clearly means they were landing in the ocean.
they missed a golden opportunity! (Score:2)