Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

usumoio t1_j1319wg wrote

One of my worst fears was that this would happen to the James Web.

135

fabulousmarco t1_j13gv91 wrote

Why? A5 is an extremely safe launcher

21

KindAwareness3073 t1_j16ay6f wrote

Why? Because no launch vehicle is infallible, and the JWT is one of a kind. Not exactly an irrational fear.

59

bigcitydreaming t1_j16cfrk wrote

Because of how significant the payload is? How expensive it was, how plagued it was with delays and cost blow-outs? How is that not obvious? Even the most reliable rockets still have the occasional anomalies and flight failures, so for such a significant payload obviously the worst fear is that happening on that given launch..

28

ccgarnaal t1_j148szj wrote

Read the title, this was not an A5 launch but the 2nd of the new model small launcher "Vega C"

11

fabulousmarco t1_j14h9h1 wrote

Yes, I'm aware. JWST used A5 though, a tried and tested launcher with excellent reliability

30

TrackFittyTwo t1_j14ppmm wrote

Sure. However, things still go wrong sometimes no matter how tried and tested they are.

17

gulgin t1_j153w8x wrote

But the first launch of a new variant rocket (which this was) is notorious for mishaps. So many things are practically impossible to test without actually launching the rocket.

8

TrackFittyTwo t1_j157aoo wrote

Right. I was just thinking of terrible accidents like with the space shuttle despite being thoroughly tested and tried. You just never know.

5

ClearlyCylindrical t1_j13rtyv wrote

Ariane 5 is nothing special, it's had two failures in 115 launches. Falcon 9 has had 1 failure in almost 200 launches.

−7

Doggydog123579 t1_j14mk6m wrote

Technically yes, as AMOS wasn't launching when everything exploded. Block 5 has had 0 failures out of over 100 launches, so its still better then Ariane 5

6

toodroot t1_j15mq1x wrote

This isn't a good take on reliability. Ariane 5, Atlas 5, and Falcon 9 are reliable enough that it's impossible to accurately say which one is most reliable.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j15sg77 wrote

How are you supposed to compare reliability Other then comparing total missions to failures then?

−1

toodroot t1_j15sun4 wrote

These 3 rockets are reliable enough that you need a lot more launches to accurately measure their reliability. It's a statistics thing.

5

Doggydog123579 t1_j15u5ee wrote

You can't claim they are reliable enough without actually launching them though. The shuttle managed near the same performance but it was not a reliable rocket.

So other then using the data we have, how are we supposed to compare them?

−4

toodroot t1_j15ullq wrote

You mis-read what I meant with my comment. Another way of saying the same thing: They are so reliable that it's impossible to accurately say which one is most reliable.

3

Doggydog123579 t1_j16si0g wrote

Ok, let me start over. > They are so reliable that it's impossible

This part cant be proven without more flights. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be super reliable and had 2 failures in 135 flights, which is comparable to Ariane 5 or Falcon 9. However we know the shuttle wasnt actually reliable, but this was only learned after the fact. You cant argue reliablity with any credability unless you have a large enough data set, which we do not.

So, the only data we do have is the rockets flight record and any discoveries made during it. The current data supports the Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 being reliable, but its not currently enough to argue they actually are that reliable.

So, other then using what we already have, how are you supposed to compare launch vehicles reliability?

−1

toodroot t1_j16t6fp wrote

You're arguing about something I didn't say or mean. The entire sentence is what I meant. I'm not calling any rocket "reliable" in an absolute sense.

3

fabulousmarco t1_j16gifp wrote

>So other then using the data we have, how are we supposed to compare them?

We can't. We can qualitatively say that all three are essentially 100% reliable launchers, you can't pick a winner with this data because the very few failures they had may very well have been statistical anomalies. Their failure rate is below the margin of error.

Now suppose you multiply everything by 10. For Ariane5 imagine we'd had 20/1150 failures instead of 2/115. And for F9 imagine we'd had 10/1550 failures instead of 1/155. That would give enough margin to safely determine that the difference between the two is statistically significant, i.e. not due to statistical anomalies but rather to an actual better performance for F9.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j16ss03 wrote

I don't disagree, my issue was with his claim they are super reliable while also saying we don't have enough data to say they are statistically better. The Shuttle was supposed to be super reliable and look what happened to it.

1

toodroot t1_j1740hi wrote

u/fabulousmarco appears to have read what I actually meant. I did not say the thing you're having an issue with.

If you want to talk about Shuttle, the fact that the SRBs were recovered several times with eroded O-rings before the Challenger "accident" kind of blows any statistical analysis out of the water.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j1788cj wrote

The problem appears to be you misreading what I meant, though it doesn't help i was hastily typing it out on my phone. I fully understand what you mean and never even actually said one rocket was more reliable. My original post was me pointing out he forgot a failure, and me then pointing out Falcon 9s perfect record if I arbitrarily specify Block 5.

The argument is happening because you haven't answered my question. If the rockets are reliable enough we need thousands of launches to get the required data set, how are you determining they are reliable enough to require said data set to compare?

0

toodroot t1_j17jvoo wrote

u/fabulousmarco answered your question.

Here's the wikipedia article on the overall topic.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j17kzph wrote

Put another way, How do you know they are similar enough that a sample size of 1-200 isnt enough to determine which is more reliable.

1

Doggydog123579 t1_j17k8rb wrote

You dodged again. Im not asking about statistical probabilities. You said Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 are reliable enough we cant compare them without a thousand flights. How do you know that.

0

troublethemindseye t1_j177wha wrote

The reliability of falcon 9 is especially impressive when you compare it to the launch failure rate of Elon’s tweets.

4

mcchanical t1_j16j6oe wrote

They're both something special. We are all aware of SX's achievements, the stats for both rockets are impressive and comparable.

0

Xaqv t1_j168gnv wrote

One of my worst fears was that I’d wake up in bed with a Jim Webb from high school - a real dork!

2

ferrel_hadley t1_j137skr wrote

No offence but ESA and Europe really urgently need to go back to the drawing board. Vega failing, Soyuz gone for good and A6 struggling to gain customers.

Folks, its every red flying currently flying. If Europe wants to be a space power, it needs to ramp up private space with all speed possible.

33

thedarkem03 t1_j14d2wt wrote

>A6 struggling to gain customers

Actually, that's the opposite problem. A6 has a lot of customers but it its first launch date keeps getting delayed and it will struggle to keep up as far as manufacturing is concerned.

25

cjameshuff t1_j14zmvm wrote

They keep doing this to themselves, putting themselves into a position where they can't take advantage of an opportunity they didn't plan for. They ridiculed the idea of using reusable boosters because they wouldn't be able to keep the production lines busy at the 12 launches a year they planned to do.

6

Reddit-runner t1_j14x97u wrote

Interesting. Where did you get this info from?

−6

toodroot t1_j15lx6l wrote

The Kuiper order is a huge opportunity and problem. A good problem, but a problem.

1

Entropicalforest_ t1_j13hh98 wrote

I don't know if they can right now, they need to focus on sectors they can actually be competitive in fast. Europe is in a critical phase at the moment and cant waste much time spreading thin.

10

Reddit-runner t1_j14yc0i wrote

Any more Euro pumped into Ariane6 and Vega C is double an Euro lost.

Not only do those rockets not meat the requirements for the near future, money spend on them is not spend on actual sensible rocket projects.

1

mcchanical t1_j16l18r wrote

No offence but America has been hitchhiking to space on the Russian Soyuz for decades until a South African guy built Dragon. Only just now that Soyuz is suddenly off the table do you say Europe needs to get it's act together.

−6

bookers555 t1_j17kbmu wrote

The US relied on Russia since 2011 (retirement of the Space Shuttle) to 2020. Wasn't even a decade.

5

mcchanical t1_j17t1t3 wrote

No, no. You misunderstand, the first American to hitch a ride was 1995. Not 2011, 1995.

−2

bookers555 t1_j17wzw1 wrote

But they didnt completely rely on Russians until 2011.

6

Realistic-Fix8199 t1_j17gehl wrote

Decades? Incorrect unless decades mean something different where you are from.

3

mcchanical t1_j17gw5q wrote

The first American aboard a Soyuz was 1995. 27 years ago by my math.

Decades are 10 years where I'm from. What about you?

2

Realistic-Fix8199 t1_j17hktd wrote

True. I interpreted the remark as you meaning it was the only way to space for nasa for decades. My bad!

3

[deleted] t1_j17hua2 wrote

[deleted]

1

mcchanical t1_j17i28p wrote

The next ones were 2000, 2001 and 2002. Still decades ago.

0

[deleted] t1_j17iaxc wrote

[deleted]

1

mcchanical t1_j17igdu wrote

The entire comment chain is in response to me saying americans have used soyuz for decades. You interjected about bartering and payments. Americans have used soyuz for decades. End of.

1

ferrel_hadley t1_j17xqid wrote

>Only just now that Soyuz is suddenly off the table do you say Europe needs to get it's act together.

Ariane 4 and 5 and Soyuz were mainstays of the commercial launch industry. Now its Falcon 9.

This latest failure means Arianespace and ESA barely have any comercial launch capability at a market price.

The US having a gap between Shuttle and Dragon has nothing to do with this.

2

wgp3 t1_j19453z wrote

Hitch hiking implies you have no ride of your own. So no, America wasn't hitch hiking for decades. They did for 9 years though while working on building their own new rides. Anything prior to that isn't hitch hiking anymore than carpooling is hitch hiking. There's a vast difference between playing friendly and using more than your own ride, and having no option but someone else's ride.

Not to mention how you imply that we only used rides from them until dragon came online. We still send astronauts up on soyuz despite having dragon. It's just not hitch hiking which you either seem to have accidentally admitted or just were unaware America still uses soyuz.

2

[deleted] t1_j17fbtw wrote

[deleted]

1

mcchanical t1_j17hqt2 wrote

NASA was still using it well beyond the point where it became unavailable, so whether they knew about it or not, the space agency funded by the leading Western economy wasn't prepared and had to fall back on a private company that it was lucky to be able to call upon.

SpaceX has done a lot for space exploration in general. Everyone relies on them, and neither Europe nor the US as geopolitical entities can claim credit for sustaining the ability to service the space industry. The entire industry needs to catch up.

0

[deleted] t1_j17i3tc wrote

[deleted]

1

mcchanical t1_j17iaou wrote

It has everything to do with your comment. You said soyuz was identified as a problem long ago. I said NASA didn't do anything about it until they were forced to.

1

[deleted] t1_j17ih0k wrote

[deleted]

1

mcchanical t1_j17izqb wrote

I'm not attacking the US. I'm responding to an american saying that European space agencies aren't doing enough to compensate for the lack of viable launch vehicles. Russia and the US built their space programs as the backdrop for dominating the other in the Cold War, and invested unprecedented public funds into doing so. The rest of the world is doing their best without war funds, and shouldn't be held responsible for the lack of viable launch providers. Especially when the lauch provider here is very reliable in general.

1

skyraider17 t1_j1eny96 wrote

>Only just now that Soyuz is suddenly off the table do you say Europe needs to get it's act together.

Or it could be that the Vega has had its 3rd failure. If only 1 of 8 launches had failed they probably wouldn't be saying that

1

mcchanical t1_j1f3fwk wrote

The Vega launch system is not "Europe". It's a single launch vehicle. When a system has problems, you don't immediately start slinging mud at the entire continent it's based in.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j15hb98 wrote

Lost? Have they looked in the cushions of the couch? That's where I usually lose stuff.

28

reillan t1_j17gh5k wrote

Maybe it rolled under something.

3

The-Real-Catman t1_j17ikj7 wrote

I just found my toothbrush in the downstairs bathroom just moments after opening a new one. They should check there

3

Kwiatkowski t1_j19khu5 wrote

based on the little bit of long range footage it was definitely rolling, just a wee bit faster and more violently than planned by the looks of it

3

sapperfarms t1_j17hgq4 wrote

Between the car set and the center council if not in couch…

3