SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:51:48 GMT

"Test flights are used to gather data before flying a 'real' satellite and the degree of success is a function of how much data is gathered."

I'm sure those students at the Air Force Academy who had their "non-real" satellite would agree with this. Not. Bottom line for Elon is that same as it was for Robert Goddard back in the 1930's -- fair or not, if you say that reaching the moon is possible, every flight that does not do so is considered a failure.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

ed — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:26:25 GMT

Now, when one of these go off course and hit an airliner, who is going to pay the claims?

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

David Powell — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:18:59 GMT

They won't hit an airliner, they have better planning and range safety than that.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

James Buchanan, Laurel, MD — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:26:26 GMT

Given the amount of area in the Pacific Ocean, the odds of a direct impact are pretty slim, even on a wildly out of control launch. You give a spaceport the kind of airspace footprint you give a major international airport when you're not scheduled to land there.

Pretty poor strawman there, scarecrow, care to play again?

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Tom Duffey, Palmdale, CA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:59:47 GMT

One small step for SpaceX, one huge step for alt.space...

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:00:19 GMT

Airliners? They don't ask that question in these places (which includes Kwajalein):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_launch_sites

...because it's already understood that air traffic is to stay certain distances away, at certain times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM

...and that some zones are *always* forbidden to commercial/general air traffic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone

...why would a SpaceX be different from any other commercial satellite test/operational launch in that respect? The rules don't differentiate between Falcon, Atlas, Delta, or any other specific launcher. We already know better than to mix horizontal and vertical traffic.

Still, as with most anything else, liability will depend on the circumstances. Were you where you shouldn't have been? Or not? And if it's re-entering space debris you're concerned about, that threat already exists, SpaceX or not, doesn't it?

And to Alan, it *is* already possible to get a launch on a vehicle not considered operational (this can include a signifigantly new model of a previously mostly successful launcher), you'll likely get a bargain (or even a free ride), but you'll also *not* likely get insurance for your payload (just as your car insurance may not cover you if you have an accident on a new, but not officially opened road). At least one Amateur Radio satellite has been lost this way.

Sometimes, for reasons of your own, you may take a chance on an untried vehicle. Sadly, those Academy people gambled and lost.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

bill clawson, Hollister, CA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:01:25 GMT

I think the air force students must've realized that their inexpensive trip into space (It had to be inexpensive, or the flight wouldn't've been carrying a student project -- normally a secondary payload at best) had a fair amount of riskiness attached to it. I have no doubt that the students were bummed, but from a SpaceX engineering perspective, quite a bit about their rocket was learned. I was impressed, especially with the video footage, which was very educational.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

will, NYC — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:26:03 GMT

The airliner, for flying so disastrously off course it could be hit by a stray rocket. They have a huge cordoned-off area. I'm not saying it's impossible, but well, it is pretty damned close.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Joe Radmacher — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:26:31 GMT

Ed, The possibility of one of these rockets going off course and hitting an airliner is about the same chance of you winning three lotteries in a row with 1 in 15 million odds per lottery. The chance of a catastrophic space shuttle event would be a lot more to worry about.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Charles Hutto — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:37:14 GMT

I think Alan and Ed miss the point that these tests are by private industry and that the common belief is the government (NASA) can only do it right. Given (no -- Taking) the opportunity, this will prove that belief wrong.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Mark, Tustin, California — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:51:05 GMT

Spacex delivered what was promised a test vehicle to test all performance systems on the rocket. The first stage performed normal, stage seperation was achieved as well as fairing seperation. The second stage of course encountered problems due a bad first stage seperation but, the data from that is being looked at and a solution is being developed. I think all personel at SpaceX has alot to be proud of. After 2 test launches they have sent a vehicle into space. That's a lot better track record than most of the space start up companies have achieved. With a successful orbital insertion on their next launch SpaceX will achieve what it has promised. That's a rare thing in today's climate. I plan on investing in SpaceX when it becomes a publicly traded company.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Kevin, San Francisco, CA — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:47:24 GMT

My take is that the mission was a great success. They gathered a great deal of data that will make the next launch almost certainly successful. Almost. I would say that despite this success, they should do a DemoLaunch3 to prove it before shipping product. But I'm excited for them nonetheless.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

LJ — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:59:03 GMT

Ed: They would have to go WAY off course for that to happen. (By they I mean either the rockets or the planes that get hit). The skies are cleared out for a very long way around launches such as these.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Jon, Ygn, OH — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:37:06 GMT

Well it almost worked. :-) Almost is not good enough.

I'm sure that H.B.O., Dish TV and others are in line right now to place one of their $100,000,000 dollar satellites on top of one of these built in a garage, homemade rockets.

The people at Boeing,and other real rocket companies have nothing to worry about.
I expect SpaceX to be gone in no more than two years.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

J.C., Las Vegas, NV. — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:22:29 GMT

I am not sure how the comments deteriorated into a discussion of the launch vehicle knocking a plane out of the sky, but I would like to address the issues that Mr. Boyle has brought up.

It is my opinion that SpaceX is as much spin as it is space.

Take the first aborted lift off. When it happened, the video feed suddenly cut off, but came back on when all seemed well. Now, in most circumstances I would have chalked that up to coincidence. But if you were watching the launch live, you see that when the vehicle got into trouble and the video was lost, the live feed was immediately cut off at the source and the servers were shut down. It was obvious that SpaceX didn't want us to even hear what was going on.

Bottom line: Two rockets went up... Two rockets fell down... Two rockets didn't work.

Should we care if SpaceX is giving us spin? We should.

We, the taxpayers of the United States, are funding these rich boys toys and it is they that stand to make millions, if not billions from those taxpayers. The least we can expect is that the process is transparent.

Even though SpaceX says they can launch cheaper and faster, I am not convinced. I see this as another gimmick to make the super-rich, super-richer. I see SpaceX as being another contractor that starts out with the lowest bid and then comes the millions in "cost over-runs" with the taxpayer flipping the bill.

Remember the $500 hammer?

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Erik, El Segundo, CA — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:08:32 GMT

Alan, keep in mind that Air Force Academy had a free ride on the first Falcon 1 flight (and their satellite was significantly less expensive than other similarly sized commercial satellites). Despite the vehicle's failure to achieve orbit, the AF Academy was well aware of the potential for failure. Also keep in mind that Elon has committed to providing them with another “free” launch once Falcon 1 is deemed operational.

As far as Falcon 1 “veering off course and hitting an airliner”, I can assure you (Ed) that you have a greater chance of hitting the lottery multiple times than this happening. Even if you were to assume that the airspace was not cleared before launch (which would never happen), and you were to assume that the rocket veered wildly off course after liftoff, the chance that these two vehicles (which are each flying different trajectories at hundreds of meters per second) would accidentally impact each other is virtually zero.

The bottom line is that NASA is not the future of human spaceflight – their “return to the moon” schedule continues to shift into the future and I highly doubt this will be the first program to operate within budget. The fact that SpaceX has been able to achieve what they have achieved since their inception in 2003 is amazing and should inspire anyone who is passionate about human exploration of space. I truly believe that SpaceX has what it takes to make history.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

TJ — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:37:58 GMT

Amazing that a private company can do this so inexpensively, maybe NASA could learn a thing or two.

I mean this in a positive way. What a fabulous accomplishment

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Tim — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:54:04 GMT

Going "operational" without a single successful test??? Even the wierdos running the woefully undertested missile defense scheme aren't that batty ...

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Caleb — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:50:03 GMT

Oh, come on guys! The flight was a TEST. This means that they were testing the functionality of the engines and operations. So what if it didn't make it to orbit? SpaceX obviously feels that they now have enough data to correct the issue before the next launch, or they wouldn't be calling it a success.

Let's look at it this way - the Apollo mission went on for years and years - and then we had Apollo 13. Now, this mission was supposed to land on the far-side of the moon. They didn't. Does that mean that the Apollo rocket was a failure? No. They continued to fly, because the problem was identified and corrected. The only way to find these problems is to run a flight and see what happens.

And really, a "successful test" is, by definition, throwing away a rocket...

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:13:35 GMT

Several folk here have said that the USAFA got a free ride from SpaceX (like that somehow justifies their satellite crashing into a shed at the RRMTR); however, I have not seen a cite source for that (or one to the contrary, I might add). Anybody got one?

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Erik, El Segundo, CA — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:00:53 GMT

J.C., the launch video was being transmitted real time from an 8 acre island (Omelek in the Kwajalein Atoll) located 2100 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii – there are obvious operational challenges (including bandwidth limits) associated with launching a rocket from such a remote location. Cut the team some slack if the launch video isn’t broadcast real time in high definition without interruption. The video is recorded locally and physically transferred after the launch so if you would like an uninterrupted copy I suggest you contact mailto:lauren@spacex.com and request one.

As far as the “suspicious” loss of video during the first launch attempt - I believe you completely missed the point. The fact that the engine was ignited, shut down, and ignited again and hour later (and launched) demonstrates the robustness of Merlin – to my knowledge this is the first time any launch vehicle has successfully demonstrated an ignition-abort-launch sequence.

Before SpaceX won the NASA COTS contract six months ago they were funded exclusively by Elon, not the government. Even after winning the contract the company is still primarily funded by Elon and not the government. NASA has a budget around 16 billion dollars a year and you guys are going to complain about them giving SpaceX 250 million to try to do what they can’t do? NASA has proven time and time again that they will never be able to make space transportation affordable – they should stick to R&D.

This brings me to my next point which is that Delta, Atlas, and Pegasus are highly government subsidized launch vehicles. Boeing, Lockheed, and Orbital all have overhead costs comparable to NASA which will directly affect launch vehicle costs and will ensure that their vehicles will never become affordable. I believe somewhere around 7500 employees work on the Delta IV program – in contrast, SpaceX employs 250 people, about half of which are engineers (the other half are technicians and office staff). Also remember that the SpaceX team is comprised of exceptional individuals that were hand picked from Northrop Grumman, NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed – so I certainly don’t think it is appropriate to claim that SpaceX is not a “real rocket company”. If anything, their desire to make space access affordable for everyone qualifies them as much more “real” rocket company.

As far as Falcon 1 being a “homemade rocket built in a garage”, I don’t know if I have ever heard anything quite as ridiculous. Almost all the SpaceX engineers hold advanced degrees from well respected universities such as MIT, Stanford, Purdue, Penn State, Cornell, etc. So not only are these vehicles being designed by individuals that were educated at the best intuitions the United States has to offer, but most of them also have years of industry experience working on programs like the Space Shuttle, Delta, Atlas, DC-XA, Pegasus, etc. As far as the garage they operate out of, I suggest you make arrangements to take a tour of their state-of-the-art facilities – they are quite impressive.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:48:04 GMT

To J.C.: Exactly what government money is being spent here? (Okay, some trifiling amount for access to government launch infrastructure that taxpayers have *already* paid for) As with most other businesses, if SpaceX should fail, the only one really out, is Elon Musk, as it essentially comes from his pocket. The Feds aren't about to bail him out. (as opposed to some 'established' companies in the past) The $500 dollar hammer only says something about the government aquisition process. No private company, with only its own and investor money, could last long, that way.

This is hardly the way to make 'the super-rich, super richer.' Indeed, there's an expression to the effect of: "The surest way to make a small fortune in space...is to start with a large fortune." Business is a gamble, whether it's a mom-and-pop grocery store, or a new entry into orbital launch. Our (the US taxpayer) money isn't at stake here (certainly not as much as the 'established companies' who live on government contracts at least as much as commercal satellite launching). Let the game play out. We have the luxury of merely being non-betting spectators...but even spectators want to see winners.

And, found only moments after my previous post:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070328/
wl_asia_afp/nzealandchilerussiaaviation_
070328082014;_ylt=Ahz02Ys0X2tLt6cDyRcq0KflmlUA

...as noted, there's a finite risk of such things, SpaceX, or not.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Michael Michalski, Kent Ohio — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:49:21 GMT

People here dont seem to understand what a successfull test means. A successful test does NOT mean the rocket made it into orbit. It means the rocket achieved all its primary objectives in the test. In this case,those objectives were to collect enough data so that an operational launch that puts a satellite in orbit could be accomplished. They say they have done that and I have no reason to think they havent. The problem here isnt space-x, its the lay public that thinks they understand anything about testing rockets (or any complex scientific endevor) based on what they read in the newspapers and see on tv.

On the tv show,the test either reaches orbit or it doesnt. The daring spy sneaks in, sabotages the equipment, the test is a failure and the entire project is over (because its a "failure") In the real world of course, its anywhere from a minor, if expensive, setback (if the rocket fails on launch due to outside interference, they just do it again) to no problem at all, if the rocket almost makes orbit then fails.

This situation is similar. Its considered a success because it almost reached orbit,but missed that mark due to an easily identified and corrected fault. They now believe they have enough information to correct those flaws and acheive a satellite launch. The goal of the testing phase is not (although it would be nice) to get a rocket into orbit. Its to correct the design so that the next launch has a reasonable expectation of getting into orbit.

If the insurance company thinks that space-x can do it, thats all that really matters. At that point, its an irresponsible use of your investors money to make another test launch. These launches are expensive. If the insurance company is willing to take the risk, and the customer is willing to take the risk (and make no mistake, there is risk involved in ANY launch, even on rockets that are considered "safe" for manned space flight) thats good enough. At that point they can go ahead with a launch.

Risk is the name of the game. Even with 10 successful launches the risk of a failure does not go to zero. Once they have the risk of failure below whats acceptable,then they can go ahead and launch real satellites.

As for the airforce cadets that lost their satellite, I would think they WOULD agree the flight had been successful. They are engineers (or engineers in training) and as such, they understand that they were taking a risk on a test flight of a rocket,and that their goals,getting their payload in orbit,only coincidentally coincided with those of Space-x.

Will Dish Network and Direct TV be lining up to put their sattelites on Space-X vehicles? The answer Im sure is a resounding yes. If the cost of the launch,plus the insurance (which im sure is more than for one of the current boosters) is signifigantly less,then they will use it.

Think about it this way,if the chance of success of many launches is the same as the chance of success of a single launches,but the cost difference is great enough to cover the insurance of the failed launches and still give you a large savings,it makes sense to go for the Space-x vehicle.

To put it another way,suppose UPS offers a cheap shipping option. Unfortunately, its very hard on the packages, in fact two out of three packages is destroyed. Of course you would be crazy to use it, right?

Suppose you want to send an item to your friend. If the item costs 5 dollars to ship with insurance using conventional ups ground, but only a nickel to ship with the new shipping method its looking better. You decide that time isnt a big issue,you need it there within the next month or two. The new shipping method is risky,but since the item is insured,and is replaceable,then it makes sense. You could send it 50 times with the cheap shipping option and still come out ahead.

If the item is replaceable (either a SD card, a letter or a for a rocket, a satellite) of course this is fine. If its not (your grandmothers wedding ring, or for a rocket, a passenger) or if it needs to be arrive the first time its sent (Im sorry, 'we will buy you a new missile interceptor and will try to intercept the next incoming nuke' doesnt really work) then of course you need to have a much more reliable rocket.

Overall,in the case of Space-X,its actually acceptable for an operational rocket to fail once in awhile. Each time that happens,they will step back,look at the data,correct the flaw and then continue. Over the years, the rockets become more reliable and the insurance rates drop. You dont see any launch companies throwing their money away making more "test" launches, without payloads, everytime a rocket fails. They fix the problem, then slap someone elses satellite on top of the rocket and try it again.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Andy, CS, TX — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:03:05 GMT

J.C.

"I see this as another gimmick to make the super-rich, super-richer."

Apparently you missed the part where Elon was sitting on the beach with his $385 million and decided to invest it in this risky business, rather than living off the interest for the rest of his life. He is not trying to get ritcher, he is chasing a childhood dream.

And about the cost overruns, this is a private business. I'm pretty sure that they will quote the customer a price and get their payload into space for that price. Cost overruns will most likely be absorbed by the company and not tax payers. If they overrun too much, the market will deal with them accordingly.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/honda.html

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Edward Hoefer — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:50:09 GMT

I am really glad there are so many negative comments here. That way when they go public there may not be as much competition for the stock when it's cheap.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Jon, Ygn., OH — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:19:05 GMT

Go public Edward? Don't count on it. First, there has to be a viable product or service. So far, there seems to be nothing to invest in.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Bill — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:56:27 GMT

Definitions from dictionary.com…

Test: The means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.

Successful: Having a favorable outcome; having obtained something desired or intended.

By these two definitions Demoflight 2 would certainly be considered a successful test. Anyone wishing to debate this is arguing in favor of their interpretation of these two words, not their dictionary definition.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Mark, Kansas City, Mo — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:44:09 GMT

Jon, Michael addressed your comments above, if you have no rebuttal or nothing else to add stop trolling.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Jon,Ygn., OH — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:55:50 GMT

Mark,

I am not trolling. SpaceX and others have yet to make dollar one on any of this. Open your eyes sir.

As I stated above, there is nothing to invest in at this time. Mr. Bieglow admits to this. I know, different company, but their goals are the same.

That is, low cost access to space. It has yet to happen. And I am just a little skeptical of this whole effort.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Michael Michalski,kent oh — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:19:04 GMT

Not true at all. They clearly have a rocket design that pretty much works. Just because a seal leaks, or a weld fails, or in their case, the fuel sloshes around causing the cutoff to trip doesn't mean the rocket design is not viable. The fact is, if the rocket operated long enough to validate all the other systems, and that one part malfunctioned, so long as they have a solution, things are going well.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any design or research projects understands the difference between a failed weld, or a failed seal, or an unexpected but fixable problem, and a show stopping flaw. Honestly however, I am not surprised that many people don't understand these proceses. This sort of ignorance is actually propagated by tv and movies. They make it look like this stuff is easy. You see a sophisticated piece of technology thrown together in a matter of weeks or days, and it works the first time. If it doesn't, it's a "failure". That's just not the way it is in the real world. In the real world, you spend months or years with a team of people making a complex design. You then build one. It doesn't work. That's just the way it is, things rarely work right the first time. You then look at what went wrong, fix those problems and try again. There usually comes a time when you know you have all the major problems solved. That time is NOT the first time that it works right, instead it's usually the last time it DIDN'T work.

With the space-x rocket, they have most of it right. They have a rocket. It takes off. It produces the expected amount of thrust. Its guidance system works and the rocket flies where it is supposed to go. It doesn't spring fuel leaks and explode. Unfortunately, there was a problem. The fuel sloshed around making the engine cut off. They have not one, but two solutions to it. One will hopefully prevent the sloshing altogether. If that doesn't work, the have a second fix as well. It will increase costs a bit, because it might require more effort to refurbish an engine, but that's something that I think they can live with. There may be other solutions as well. From what I have seen, there don't seem to be any serious problems.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Jon, Ygn., OH — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:24:47 GMT

I understand what a test is. No ignorance here. This vehicle does seem to have problems. After only two test shots, and still not placing anything into orbit. And then declaring the vehicle ready for commercial use, is the height of folly.

Clearly more testing is needed. However Mr. Musk said, no more testing needed! Sounds more like someone who has spent a bundle on a childhood fantasy and is having second thoughts.

Which brings me to my point. The idea that we can launch a real useful satellite into orbit for a few million dollars, is delusional beyond belief. I believe Elon and others in this game will give up on this dream in the not too distant future.

In reality it cost tens, no, hundreds of millions of dollars to launch even a modest payload to low Earth orbit.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:23:04 GMT

Michael,

I suggest you read the comments at

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/
archive/2007/03/05/79389.aspx

before responding again.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

JC, Davis, CA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:34:48 GMT

Well, I suppose time will convince Jon that he was either correct or incorrect in his skepticism.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Matt, Christchurch, NZ — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:01:57 GMT

There seem to be a lot of doubters and knockers out there. Let me say this, Good on Elon Musk and Spacex, after all it is his self made dollars and his share hard work and sweat that has gotten them this far. History never sits still, and it because of people with vision such as Elon Musk to go out and change the current paradigm. If he and Spacex doesnt succeed then someone else will eventually come along and succeed.

SpaceX's positive 'spin'

Jon, Ygn., OH — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:19:56 GMT

Matt, Iam not knocking SpaceX. I remain skeptical however. Mr. Musk is free to do what he wishes with his money. And as JC said above, time will tell who is correct here.