4 ms·
The right call was made, yet they still need to start showing that they can regularly launch without blowing up on the pad, cargo and all. In other words, this
by M_Grey 10y ago
The right call was made, yet they still need to start showing that they can regularly launch without blowing up on the pad, cargo and all. In other words, this was the right choice in a bad situation.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoSpaceX need to show they can launch frequently, period. Higher launch frequency with lower reliability is a market that aligns with SpaceX's commercial customers.
- the_duke 10y agoI highly doubt that, considering how costly the rocket and the payload are. It would probably drive up insurance costs significantly too.
- monochromatic 10y agoIf I have a hugely valuable payload, why would I entrust it to a company that has a reputation of launching when they shouldn't? Scrubbing a launch is a much smaller deal than blowing up and losing the payload.
- M_Grey 10y agoYeah, I mean they're both undesirable outcomes given a competitive market, but one is "sub-optimal", the other is a catastrophe.
- awalton 10y agoIt's really hard to say they're in a bad situation, given the company's age, the newness of the technology they're flying, and the relative low cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010%E2%80%9319) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(2010%E... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010%... Six/Seven launches a year puts them quite comparable to Ariane, and only slightly behind the nearly twice as expensive Atlas flights. Nobody is going to fault SpaceX for taking a breather for a day to help ensure their hardware reaches orbit rather than launching through an anomaly and raising the risk of a failure.