I've got: > > hncynic 1 minute ago > The article didn't say anything. But it just says that the launch failed, and that it did not have a recovery time. > So

I've got: > > hncynic 1 minute ago > The article didn't say anything. But it just says that the launch failed, and that it did not have a recovery time. > So to me, this sounds more like an anomaly of some kind to explain it better than a normal anomaly of the event. > What it means to say that the failure caused is exactly the same thing that happened when the spacecraft started at the right time, except it didn't have a recovery time and was unable to recover. > How long is an anomaly like this from space-X supposed to take? This is a comedy generator.