Rocket Launches Are Actually Surprisingly Successful

The recent SpaceX launchpad explosion is a reminder that rocketry is tricky, but also remarkable for accomplishing as much as it does

Explosion of Cygnus CRS Orb-3 shortly after launch

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Every time that a rocket launch goes awry one can only feel for the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have poured their technical prowess into making these attempts. From the engineers and machinists, to the investors and spacecraft technicians, and often the scientists and researchers. It can be heartbreaking to watch years, or even decades of work go up in smoke.

In that sense the recent SpaceX rocket failure was simply another reminder that pushing things into space on top of a controlled explosion is unlikely to ever be completely routine. It's another reason why astronauts, cosmonauts, and taikonauts are genuinely brave people.

But to put all of this in a little more context it's interesting to look at overall space launch statistics. A rather nice resource for this is the site 'Space Launch Report'. Here I've reproduced the launch counts for 2015 from the information on those pages.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Vehicle            Overall      By Orbit Type
                   Launches      Earth-Orbit          Earth-Escape
                    (Failures)       LEO     >LEO       Deep Space

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CZ (DF-5)            17(0)        8(0)    9(0)    -
R-7                      16(1)       12(1)   4(0)    -
Atlas 5                   9(0)        3(0)    6(0)    -
Proton                   8(1)         -        8(1)    -
Falcon 9                7(1)        4(1)    3(0)    -
Ariane 5                6(0)         -        6(0)    -
PSLV                     4(0)        3(0)    1(0)    -
H-2A                     3(0)        2(0)    1(0)    -
Delta 4                  2(0)         -        2(0)    -
Rokot/Briz KM     2(0)          2(0)       -     -
Vega                      2(0)         2(0)       -    -
Zenit                     1(0)          -       1(0)    -
GSLV                    1(0)          -       1(0)    -
H-2B                    1(0)          1(0)    -        -
Delta 2                  1(0)         1(0)    -        -
Dnepr                   1(0)         1(0)    -        -
CZ-6                     1(0)         1(0)    -        -
CZ-11                   1(0)         1(0)    -        -
Safir 1B                 1(0)        1(0)    -        -
Soyuz 2-1v            1(1)        1(1)    -        -
Super Strypi          1(1)        1(1)    -        -
---------------------------------------------------------
Total                     86(5)     44(4)  42(1)     -
 

So the impressive thing is that the global launch industry had 5 failures out of 86 launches in 2015 (a 5.8% failure rate in raw numbers). In fact, looking deeper at the statistics (compiled by Ed Kyle) it's truly remarkable how well rocket launches typically go - considering the hazards that they have to engineer into 'acceptable' limits.

A launcher like a Delta 2 has a predicted orbital success rate of 98% (based on prior performance), as does the Soyuz-FG. A SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.2 comes in at about 90%. Although those are among the highest predicted success rates, of the 49 or so launch vehicles in active use today, only 16 actually fall below the 75% level for this measure - and these are running into small-number statistics.

Getting into space is tough, the amazing thing is how good we've got at doing it.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe