Comments on: Falcon launch delayed by one storm, as SpaceX gets caught up in another (updated)

By: D. Messier

D. Messier — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:43:10 +0000

Mission rules are mission rules. You can’t blame NASA for applying them as agreed to prior to launch. It was SpaceX’s engine that blew out. The responsibility lies with them.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:38:31 +0000

Interesting thoughts. Hadn’t considered the publicity effect on the company and it’s employees but I would expect it to add some pressure to perform. Customers may not like extensive publicity but who knows, I’m certainly not one. This is a bit catch 22’ish. Publicity gets you exposure and helps influence decision-makers, public opinion, funding bodies perhaps. Lack of it tends to encourage rumour-mongering and other negative effects.

However the web casts are back on so it was either a technical problem or SpaceX quickly reviewed their position and decided it was better to engage in this type of publicity as opposed to not doing so. Don’t know about the commentary. I’d settle for no speaking heads personally if we still get feed from the controllers, etc.

Cheers.

By: Gary Warburton

Gary Warburton — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:57:27 +0000

Maybe Elon feels he`s putting his crews under too much pressure to perform. Full public exposure probably puts his engineers under a lot of strain. Maybe he wants to cool it until they reach their cadence and give crews a breather. Its a new rocket and there are bound to be a few kinks that have to be worked out. I do know that full public exposure is good for business and is one reason why the SpaceX`s manifest is full.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:36:54 +0000

Crap.
1. Musk and SpaceX have been more open regarding their developments than basically any company per se and yet they are a private organisation and beholden to nobody so transparency is not required of them as they have no shareholders to please or answer to.
2. It was NASA that decided there was insufficient margin left after the engine failure that lead to the ‘test’ OrbComm satellite being placed in a lower orbit than desired.
3. There are a number of public facts that refute your argument regarding ‘You get what you pay for’ comment.
3.1 SpaceX have had 9 out of 9 successful flights with F9 delivering the primary payloads to the correct orbit. There have been slips but they occur in all launches no matter what organisation.
3.2 Several commercial satellite companies have been very complementary of SpaceX and their cost structures and reliability. e.g. SES
3.3 Recently IIRC it was the Director of Intelligence in the U.S. government or some such senior official who raved on about SpaceX cost impacts.
3.4 ESA is scambling to ramp up the A5ME and A6 trying desperately to find ways to match SpaceX costs and failing I might add.
3.5 SpaceX had developed Dragon Cargo capsule that has proven reliable and spaceworthy delivering 3 successful missions to the ISS and returning cargo safely to Earth.

There are numerous other examples. Time to get off your soapbox and get your facts right.

Cheers.

By: TruthBeTold

TruthBeTold — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:58:31 +0000

Well now, where are all the SpaceX fanboys that say how “transparent” Musk and his company are? SpaceX has been hiding a lot of things about the particular launch. Maybe this is a good example of “You get what you pay for.” Orbcomm should have learned their lesson after the first FAILED SpaceX launch where their payload came crashing down to orbit!

By: LOL

LOL — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:00:40 +0000

The web video team was at home with their family on the weekend because they didn’t plan for so many launch scrubs. OR there’s a conspiracy.

Something happened indeed.

By: Jim Nobles

Jim Nobles — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:04:16 +0000

This whole thing has a ‘something happened at the last minute’ feel to me. With their mortal enemy The Alliance starting a PR push it seems an unlikely time to try and fade from sight. Something happened.