4 ms·
What you are saying seems preposterous and fails Occam's Razor badly. It seems you and many others in this thread can't accept that maybe SpaceX is fallible an
by JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
What you are saying seems preposterous and fails Occam's Razor badly. It seems you and many others in this thread can't accept that maybe SpaceX is fallible and can make mistakes and you are formulating fantastic conspiracy theories to support your view.
- andygates 9y agoAye, but their second stage and payload delivery have been fiercely reliable. That the client had a custom adapter seems perfect occam-bait in this case.
- JohnJamesRambo 9y agoOk so they have been fiercely reliable, so what? Fiercely reliable is not infallible. Then it is more likely that SpaceX is going along with a cover-up and the black eye and tarnished image coming from the loss of a billion dollar payload just to help out their customer's secrecy? That seems even more unbelievable and complicated than equipment failure.
- _Tev 9y agoHow does SpaceX get tarnished reputation out of this? Anyone who follows spaceflight at all recognizes their behavior as confirming "rocket operated nominally" scenario. Their FH introduction and previous failures (or even found pre-launch issues) show they are not afraid of standdowns/delays for the sake of future missions assurance.
- JshWright 9y agoSpaceX has never hidden their failures. SpaceX says the rocket performed "nominally" (aerospace speak for "it worked just fine"). You believe SpaceX is lying about that?
- samcat116 9y agoSpaceX has no reason to lie about this. If they were caught lying then it would do irreparable damage to their reputation as a launch provider.