Slashdot Mirror
HTV-5 On Its Way To the ISS
nojayuk writes: There's another launcher delivering cargo to the ISS apart from US and Russian vehicles, and it's Japanese. The fifth Koutonori (White Stork) cargo vehicle was successfully launched today at from pad 2 of the Yoshinobu Launch Complex at Tanegashima south of Tokyo at 11:50:49 UTC, carrying over 5 tonnes of food, spare parts and scientific equipment to the ISS in a pressurised cabin and an external racking system. This is the fifth successful launch in a row for the Japanese H2B launcher. The Koutonoris have carried over 20 tonnes of cargo in total to the ISS, more than double the amount of SpaceX's six successful CRS resupply flights.
Of course they're working hard on their launch capabilities. How else are they going to get their giant mecha into space?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Japan's vehicle has the highest payload of any of the current launch systems but it is also a hugely expensive launch system. The cost per launch is around 15 Billion yen, $121m USD. They are currently developing the H3 as the successor to the H2B launch system with the primary target of reducing the cost by half.
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
The Falcon 9 has a lift capacity of 13,000kg to LEO vs 16,500 for the H2B.
So it depends what race you are looking at.
the USA is Portugal in the race to the New (Space) World.
Maybe you forgot that we landed a sensor and manipulator packed dune buggy on mars? Or that probe that just surveyed the Pluto system and is heading to the Kuiper belt? Or the Opportunity rover that's been active on Mars for over ten years and is still chugging along? Oh ... all of that on a severely reduced budget.
No, it's just that the USA does the hard stuff. We just don't do the space equivalent of cargo hauling.
Cool! Legal drugs in spaaaaace!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The cost per launch is around 15 Billion yen, $121m USD.
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
Yea, but with the falcon you have to launch two of them to get one to the space station... (Grin).
Look, Personally I like their approach over Space-X's. Build a reliable platform, even if it's more expensive. Gain experience with the technology and the launch process then start to pare down your costs by looking for your cheaper ways to do parts of your already working system. Space-X has an "all or nothing" approach where they are cutting costs up front and trying to push the technology at the same time. Space X struggles with reliability and will suffer more front loaded failures because they are pushing the technology AND costs, AND reliability at the same time.
Basically, you need to concentrate on ONE major advancement at a time to have a high probability of success and Space-X is pushing more than one advancement (arguably they are trying to advance on three fronts). The Japanese know this, Musk doesn't. Musk has divided his attention between multiple interesting things and will struggle to master all of them at once, the Japanese are concentrating on but one thing at a time and will eventually surpass Musk and Space-X in all areas, and will suffer less catastrophic failures in the process.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That the amount of cargo transported is higher in less launches is irrelevant. The falcon heavy achieves a Les than 1k dollars per pound to Leo cost. I have been unable to easily find a similar number for the koutonori. Anyone here know how it stacks up? That's a more critical number.
Silence is a state of mime.
Bet you would get lower insurance rates using the Japanese product also. I guess it all depends on priorities. Quick and dirty, or slow and steady...
Hey! Hold on a second! Is this some tortoise/hare parable thing going on here?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Both the linked article, as well as wikipedia seem to agree that the spelling is incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle
Falcon 9 is 17 successful from 19 launches and only 1 of those was a catastrophic failure, the other was a T-2 abort. The H2B is only on it's 5th launch so we don't know if it is as reliable or not yet.
WTF? Since when does SpaceX count as all-or-nothing? They built a rocket using a largely simple and proven design (RP1/LOX), using modern materials and techniques granted but no reason to believe it was risky. The only real up-front cost cutting was telling areospace suppliers to go f*sk themselves when their prices where outrageous (OK, that has probably led to lots of delays, but no explosions).
From a tech standpoint, the F9/FH is basically complete, no more advances; well, the full throttle F9 has yet to be launched, but after that its basically only tweaks (due to having to revamp everything), no more tech advances unless they add a 3rd stage.
For reliability, not sure what you mean here. Never heard of them pushing much beyond adding some redundancy. The F9 seems to be a rather reliable launcher all told, not as reliable as the best, but still very good.
Costs only seem to be going up. Their only real plan to lower costs for the F9 line is to land and find out how they can refly them. Granted they do save by reusing the same tech over and over, but that only cuts into performance not reliability.
If you wanted to point out three things SpaceX was pushing you should have said reusable rockets, Dragon capsules, and Raptor engines, along with whatever side projects contribute to those.
There's no indication the H2 is safer or more reliable than Falcon.
Even if Falcon loses half the rockets sent up, they still are cheaper for total launch cost (assuming unmanned, and nothing insanely expensive is launched).
It's "Kounotori" not "Koutonori", you illiterate cunts.
Competition makes everything better.
"Yea, but with the falcon you have to launch two of them to get one to the space station... (Grin)."
Thereby still saving money with the Falcon.
..."the Japanese are concentrating on but one thing at a time and will eventually surpass Musk and Space-X in all areas"...
The first rocket in the H2 series flew almost a year before the Falcon 9 v1.0's initial launch and had the benefit of a larger budget, decades more of development (factoring in the first-hand technological expertise gained from earlier rocket models like the H1), and, as a government-initiated project, a much bigger license to fail. Moreover the Falcon 9 also had to satisfy the demands of at least three different markets, NASA and the military besides the usual commercial launch customers.
F9 was launched 19 times, with 1 failure (and 1 partial failure due to NASA requirements ) in 5 years.
H2B was launched 5x over the last 6 years.
H2A launched 28x with 1 failure.
All in all, I would rate SpaceX successful. In fact, it is so successful, that all other launch systems, except for China's, are currently being re-designed because of realization that SpaceX is a real threat to them.
I can still hear the Giant Robo theme...
"the Japanese are concentrating on but one thing at a time and will eventually surpass Musk and Space-X in all areas" -- no they won't and here's why: The Japanese have had the second or third largest economy for how long? And been one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world for how long? Almost for longer than Musk has been alive. And what have they done in Space -- essentially nothing noteworthy. They don't care. I had high hopes for them in the 80's -- technological superpower on the rise, without much in the way of military adventures, big population without a lot of land to exploit -- seemed natural that they would flex their techno-prowess in space as the USA and USSR fell behind. But it didn't happen, they had other priorities (mostly screwing around with bogus real estate deals and fu**ing up their banking system as it turned out). Now that Japan is leading the world in elderly citizens they will be spending their research resources on robots to care for their geezers. Japan isn't going anywhere in Space, it is a pity. I'll put my bets on Musk -- he wants it.
>> the USA is Portugal in the race to the New (Space) World.
> Maybe you forgot that we landed a sensor and manipulator packed dune buggy on mars?
You're doing it wrong, son.
Portugal is not in so good a shape now, but they were the first explorers from Europe 1,000 years after the Vikings. They had a motto: "To navigate is needed, to live is not needed."
Come to think, this could be applied to a lot of people nowadays... O.o
Saying the USA is like Portugal is a compliment. But, yes, it could mean the USA stagnated.
Saying the USA is like Portugal is a compliment. But, yes, it could mean the USA stagnated.
well i didn't say that, you responded to the wrong comment.
dude you have no idea how many corners they cut. example 1: they had a strut fail at 20% of the design strength. that absolutely does not happen with the big boys - this shows an unbelievable amount of sloppiness in their supply chain. so now they're going to test every strut. okay, what's going to fail next time? example 2: they cut corners whenever possible. they use non-space-rated parts everywhere to save money, on the basis that it's only going to be in space for two weeks anyway, so what difference does it make. this is the kind of thinking that led to the challenger blowing up - they saw that the o-rings had a certain amount of erosion after every flight and decided that this was an "acceptable" level of erosion. well, they launched in different weather than usual and the the o-ring went kaboom. same thing with columbia's explosion - debris from the fuel tanks hit the orbiter all the time, and they had no idea how much the impact was -- turns out that the impact could destroy the RCC leading edge. oops. saying that a small amount of unanticipated failure is acceptable is how you get catastrophic failures. on the fourth falcon flight one of the nine engines failed. the primary payload got to orbit, so success, right? no. in none of the space shuttle missions did they have a main engine fail during flight.
Another troll.
The supplier, also supplies ULA and O-ATK. The issue is not theirs, but the fact that a certified company, failed.
I'm a bit surprised by some posters talking like a success for the Japanese somehow hurts spacex or vice versa. It's good to have lots of redundancy.
As to costs, even if the Japanese launcher can match or beat spacex costs, spacex has one thing no one else even the Russians have. That's return cargo capability. For research purposes this is a big deal.
Nor did I imply you had said it, thus I think you misunderstood the OP post and misunderstood my post, too.
And you got a (4, Insightful) and a (2, Whatever) for that.
I suppose this is to prove that registering is good.
Agreed. The more players the better, and the more solutions the better. This is seen in SpaceX's return capacity and in the H2B's seriously wide footprint meaning it can carry items to orbit that won't physically fit on the Falcon 9. Each launch system has its place and if SpaceX makes the costs cheaper we all benefit.
Why be defensive when it's not even appropriate? The New World wasn't explored by today's PIIGS Portugal; it was explored by Portugal, the ambitious, sea-faring, colonizing superpower.
So then "SpaceX is Portugal in the race to the New (Space) World." ?
Time for a dance off!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
JAXA is currently flying its second asteroid material return mission, Hayabusa 2. The first was not a total success but the craft did get to its target and return a capsule to Earth. Number of NASA asteroid material return missions, zero.
Hayabusa 2 is carrying a lander built by the French CNES and three smaller "hopping" landers as well as an IED meant to blow a hole in the asteroid's surface to expose fresh material for inspection and analysis.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com...
There's a lot of difficult science to be done (tm GlaDOS) out in the solar system, we can't expect the US to do all of it.
the USA is Portugal in the race to the New (Space) World.
Maybe you forgot that we landed a sensor and manipulator packed dune buggy on mars? Or that probe that just surveyed the Pluto system and is heading to the Kuiper belt? Or the Opportunity rover that's been active on Mars for over ten years and is still chugging along? Oh ... all of that on a severely reduced budget.
No, it's just that the USA does the hard stuff. We just don't do the space equivalent of cargo hauling.
All of that is true.
The Portuguese did all the hard work, and achieved by far the most in terms of new things. They developed the tools to measure location. They made the maps.
For example, the Dutch just stole the maps, improved the ships, and then started hauling lots of cargo. And became incredibly rich.
Some American person in the above comments is even going into complicated details of cost, maintenance, reuse, cost per tonne etc. just to prove that there is _something_ the Japanese aren't the best and most successful at. Hilarious.
SpaceX is a company, not a country; also, the USA, even with its flagging space ambition and reduced budget, was home country to the Opportunity rover on the Mars, the New Horizon that gave Pluto a selfie, and private space initiatives, of which, of course, SpaceX is most accomplished. Also, a lot of the fundamental or applied research that space exploration benefits from is coming out of the USA.
The European Space Agency has sent a few deliveries to ISS too using its hugely successful Ariane 5 launcher and a robot delivery vehicle
.
Virtually serving coffee
So, because NASA had two catastrophic failures SpaceX is cutting corners? Nice try. Seats don't need to be "Space rated". Many internal components don't need to be "space rated" as long as the external components protect them sufficiently by being "space rated". You're barking up the wrong tree.
As for the strut, do you really think there are no components that slip through the cracks at the "big boys"? Have you ever actually built anything? Infant mortality happens; it's a fact of life. That doesn't mean your supply chain is crap though it is ONE possibility. There are many many other possibilities though.
With respect to your engine failure example, if you really believe nine engines are "required" to do the job, you're clearly wrong as they have successfully delivered payloads with less. They have designed in redundancy, which is NOT a failure, no matter how you look at it. "Main engine" or not, if the mission was accomplished safely, it IS success.
Is SpaceX cutting corners? Sure. That's how they have had the success they have. Are they doing it in a controlled and well measured manner based upon years of engineering experience (in and out of space)? I believe so. Their track record is pretty strong so far. Consider that the Space Shuttle program had 135 missions over the course of 30 years. SpaceX has had 19 in how many years? 5? According to Wikipedia, if they keep on track, they'll have something like 60 missions before they hit 10 years of operation at a significantly reduced cost.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The Falcon 9 by comparison has a launch cost of $57 million.
NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches, that's a lot more than $57 million per launch. And those 12 launches included 2 test launches.
Well, at this point Falcon 9 already had one partial failure due to an engine problem.
Besides the fact that I'd find Russia a better fit as the Portugal of the race to the New (Space) World, I think that you need to study a bit of history. Sometimes it turns useful.
Yes there is... H2 hasn't failed any of it's launches, the Falcon has numerous failures and partial failures.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Falcon 9's 19th launch had the catastrophic failure... That we are this far into the program and THEN have a failure says something.... (Not to mention that there have been a lot of partial failures of this system, where components failed to function as intended and ONE partial failure where only one payload of two got delivered as intended. )
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm constantly dismayed when terms get misused to the point that they lose their original meaning, but the culprits are usually people wanting to use words they don't quite understand to look smarter than they are. Your sentence "Hayabusa 2 is carrying [...] an IED meant to blow a hole [...]" is an example - do you actually know what the "I" in "IED" stands for? Hint: if it's carefully designed, it's not improvised.
Sadly, most things called IEDs aren't particularly improvised either, they're just "ED"s - or as they used to call them, "bombs".
Number of NASA asteroid material return missions, zero.
What, are we comparing dicks here? Quick, name the only country to have sent a probe to fly by or land on every planet. Or every body that was ever considered a planet, if you prefer.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is the fifth successful launch in a row for the Japanese H2B launcher. The Koutonoris have carried over 20 tonnes of cargo in total to the ISS, more than double the amount of SpaceX's six successful CRS resupply flights
Hey dickshit, instead of pouring Musk Koolaid, try learning how to read.
In "5" flights, the Japs delivered "more than double" SpaceX's "6" flights.
And each SpaceX flight is costing NASA $1.6B/12=$133M
Portugal fans need to relax. Interchange "Portugal" with any nation that isn't heavily invested in space exploration. It was meant to insult the US, not Portugal.
I think that despite my and some other responses, you still misunderstand what turkeydance above you probably meant. IMO he clearly referred to Portugal's former glory, because of the temporal reference to the 'race to the New World'. So it's not that anybody 'needs to relax'; it's you who need to understand that there exists another interpretation of what turkeydance wrote, and it'll give you a whole different perspective.
You and those who upvoted you are the ones who 'need to relax', because you interpreted the comparison to Portugal as if it was compared to Romania or something, meaning the US is backwards. But again, I don't think it's the correct interpretation.
"The USA" doesn't mean a lot now that private companies have sprung up. You do have a point, however: NASA is damn good at payloads. Their stuff usually works really well once it's up but, well, they kinda suck at launch vehicles. The most likely reason is pork. It's hard to spread out manufacturing of a space probe over fifty states but a new launch vehicle? Easily. And once parts manufacturers exist they must never go away, hence the SLS, which most likely will be unneccessarily expensive while performing worse then a vehicle that wasn't designed to generate revenue for every damn state in the union.
Honestly, NASA would probably do better if they sold their launch assets to SpaceX and focused entirely on payloads and missions. Whether they'll end up launching with rockets from Russia, Japan, SpaceX or even Copenhagen Suborbital is no matter as long as the rockets are reliable. The existing rockets have a track record and it's often a good one. NASA's new launcher doesn't.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development. And they were specifying what the rockets needed to be capable of. SpaceX represents to NASA an additional way of getting to space and an opportunity to apply commercial pressure to the existing suppliers. Future contracts for launches will most likely be at a significantly lower rate.
You and those who upvoted you are the ones who 'need to relax', because you interpreted the comparison to Portugal as if it was compared to Romania or something, meaning the US is backwards. But again, I don't think it's the correct interpretation.
No one gives a sh*t about Portugal, in the context of this topic. I know you'd like to think this conversation is all about P but the bottom line is no one cares. P is an -insert 2nd world nation here- place filler.
We know P was a world power 400-500 years ago is irrelevant. We all had world history in grade school. We are very proud of P for achieving that. Good for them. We get it. But completely off topic and irrelevant to this conversation.
.
No there isn't. Falcon has had one failure and onepartial failure. By its fifth launch, the F-9 didn't have any failures at all. H2 needs eleven more successful launches before you say it's more reliable.
They did have a partial failure in launch 4. The primary payload was still delivered, though.
If I had to choose which of the two was going to loft me into orbit, I'd choose the F-9. Five launches just isn't a long enough track record to have any idea what you're dealing with.
It may not be *enough* data to determine if it's safe, but there is *indications* that the H2 system is reliable. The Falcon, on the other hand, has had it's share of issues.
3. First attempt was scrubbed AFTER engine start, second attempt was successful.
4. Engine failure on Boost, lower than intended orbit left half of the payload stranded.
6. New Design First flown with booster recovery option, recovery system fails.
7. Had an in flight fire in the Booster.
8. USAF evaluation failed on safety grounds based on this launch telemetry and flight 7's fire.
10. Booster recovery fails again, though it wasn't a primary objective.
14. Another booster recovery failure.
15. And another..
17. Again....
19. Total loss of vehicle under booster power.
Even if you take out all the attempts at recovering the booster it leaves 4 out of 19 launches where there was a significant anomaly with the vehicle and when you consider H2's 2 failures out of 13 launches it seems to me that the H2 is the more reliable system here.
So there ARE indications that H2 (and specifically H2B with 5 successes in a row) is more reliable and safer...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Besides flight 4 and 19, the only thing on your list that's at all meaningful is the fire on flight 7, and even then... a success is a success. The fact that you can have problems like engine-outs and still make it to orbit is a point in favor of the design.
Every time they've had an engine out on H-2, the flight is over. This is the third iteration for that rocket family, and the first two both had failures.
I don't think it was meant as a placeholder of a 2nd rate country. I think it was meant as a leading country of the World, which Portugal was when the New World was discovered. So it was actually a compliment. So your defensive response was a kind of Woosh and you still don't understand. I agree it's not about Portugal but it doesn't mean you interpreted the root post correctly.
Well, that is not the full story. NASA paid $278 million to SpaceX to develop the Dragon module, on top of that they paid $1.6 billion more to have "at least" 12 resupply missions, that should deliver "at least" 20 metric tons of supplies to the space station. NASA, in March 2015, already prolonged the deal with SpaceX with 3 more launches in 2017, for an "undisclosed" price, because "the data is sensitive" and, after all, they assured that the total contract cannot exceed $3.1 billion.
On top of that, in 2017 SpaceX will launch NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite for $87 million, because $61.2 million is the launch price for private companies, while $90 million the price for the US government (insurance cost, certifications and all that). In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
And Space X is on it's second version of the Falcon 9 AND has had failures while the H2B has had none, yet..
Look, the question was abut there being an "indication" that H2 is safer than Falcon (look up about 5 messages ago). An indication exists in the perfect reliability record of the H2B verses the less than reliable Falcon 9 V1.1, which was the point in my response. I'm not claiming we have proof, only that there IS some *indication* that H2B is safer and more reliable given it's PERFECT (albeit shorter) record over the Falcon 9 V1.1's blemished record...
So you want to make the claim that the Falcon 9 is more reliable and safer... I don't think you have any real evidence of that, even if you want to believe it. Space X has too many problems in other areas and the latest booster failure is evidence of that. Is it proof? Nope, and I'm not claiming to have proof, only claiming that their are *indications*, which is obviously true.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
> So your defensive response was a kind of Woosh and you still don't understand.
You might as well quit. If you gave your daughter for him to marry her, he would say "why are you insulting the United States of America"?
People on defensive don't want any kind of talk.
I think it was meant as a leading country of the World, which Portugal was when the New World was discovered. So it was actually a compliment.
the level of your derangement is impressive.
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system. The Dragon is essentially cargo in this instance. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't necessary to dock with the ISS, in the same way I haven't counted the cost of the HTV transfer vehicle in the cost of the H2B launch system.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches, that's a lot more than $57 million per launch.
Then you said
Thats because NASA was buying into a company that didn't have the capability at the time and knew they would be funding development.
So, I replied
In the end the cost for a supply mission is $90 million for Falcon 9 v1.1 plus the cost of using Dragon: I doubt it will ever be significantly less than the actual $133.3 million.
And now you say
You cannot add in the cost of the Dragon when calculating the launch cost of a launching system.
Why not? Because it doesn't suit the mantra that SpaceX is so cheaper than the alternatives? The cost of a resupply mission will never be cheaper than what it is now, let alone near to the famous $57 million, and the fact that the contract was prolonged for an undisclosed price proves this. That's a fact.
It also isn't really relevant what NASA paid SpaceX for the contract. An Iphone doesn't cost $700 but customers still pay that. In the end the launch costs is somewhere south of the $60m private customer cost.
It is relevant, unless you want to compare apples to oranges. Other vectors include insurance and services in the total cost, when SpaceX says $61 million does not ($57 million is the old cost for the Falcon 9 v1.0). US government requires insurance and all that, so the cost is about $90 million (per launch, not including Dragon), not $60 million: for example Vega rockets cost €32 million services included, but €25 to €22 million is the cost excluding services.
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. You are focussing on the cost to NASA, which is fair enough, and you were looking at the total cost of the system including transfer vehicle. I was only looking at the cost of the launch system on a current per launch cost, excluding any additional customer specific costs. I wasn't actually talking about the cost of a resupply mission as that will always be more expensive because of the transfer vehicle, if nothing else.
Vega costs 22 million euro for the rocket c $25 million USD for a payload of 1963kg
H2B costs 133m for a payload of 19,000kg
Falcon 9 costs $61m for a payload of 13,150kg
On top of all of these costs have to go the costs of the transfer vehicles and any other compliance costs that are required.
As for the costs of insurance and the like being included in the quoted costs that is outside the information that I have been able to find. I had worked on the premise that those prices were the cost of the launch vehicle alone and didn't include anything else. I haven't been able to find what contract price is in place for the HTV launches. I am not trying to say that the SpaceX launches cost NASA $61m per supply mission, it clearly costs more than that. All I was saying was that for the launcher and launcher alone the Falcon is currently cheaper per kg than the others.
I will also add that there are things the Falcon is unable to carry items that the H2N and the Ariane 5 would be capable of because it is a significantly narrower design (c3m diameter to 5m+). You choose the best vehicle for your needs.