Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Launch Not So Perfect After All

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-have-a-problem dept.

First time accepted submitter drichan writes "Those of us who watched the live feed of last night's Falcon 9 launch could be forgiven for assuming that everything went according to plan. All the reports that came through over the audio were heavy on the word "nominal," and the craft successfully entered an orbit that has it on schedule to dock with the International Space Station on Wednesday. But over night, SpaceX released a slow-motion video of what they're calling an 'anomaly.'"

3 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. The importtant things by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

    – Both Saturn V and the shuttle launch system were designed to handle failure of at least one engine
    – The entire engine didn't actually explode, as some sources have reported; the onboard computers were still sending data from it (SpaceX believes it was just the aerodynamic casing (fairing) that exploded, due to the pressure release of the engine)
    – This doesn't mean the Falcon 9 system is necessarily less safe than NASA systems; on two occasions, Saturn V rockets experienced a similar loss, with similar (i.e., nil) impact to the mission's success

    So, y'know. Rejoice nerdily about the fact that the failsafes worked, rather than worrying about commercial technology being inferior.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  2. Re:An by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reason why you can have a fixed price contract in this situation is that NASA isn't really defining any requirements; also not changing them midstream; but also that there is little development risk. The rocket from SpaceX isn't really anything innovative, which is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Where fixed price contracts don't work is when you have a significant amount of development risk, and you end up having to build that into the cost of the contract, meaning that you often don't end up with low price bids. Europe's ESA for example pretty much only works from Fixed Price contracts, which builds in the cost of that risk into the project, inflating the bid cost, and you end up with Europe overall, not really committing to many projects, because they get sticker shock.

    Who can say which method is better overall.

  3. Re:Whats the problem? by adri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. can we please have those scrapbooks scanned and placed online? pretty please?