5 ms·

I dont like spaceXs propoganda department. I believe this is a difference between a public and a private space program. SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or i

I dont like spaceXs propoganda department. I believe this is a difference between a public and a private space program. SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. Thats dishonest and just not scientific imo.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
They seem to be incredibly open to me. They have been very transparent about pretty much every hiccup and misstep they've had in any flight. I think you are comparing them to an ideal which has never existed in reality.
- everyone 13y ago
  They cut the live feed when an issue came up on one of their dragon capsule launches.
  - zackbloom 13y ago
    You don't think NASA wouldn't have cut the feed on the Challenger disaster if they could have?
    - rplnt 13y ago
      Perhaps, but there were people on Challenger. Not that it would look any different on cameras...
    - twistedpair 13y ago
      They did cut the feed. The actual video feed kept going until range control fired the FTS to destroy the SRB's that kept flying along after the shuttle was blown apart. You didn't get to see that back in the 80's. That footage had only recently been released.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    There is a little bit of hyperbole involved when you have an issue with them cutting the live feed on one of their missions and then claiming: "SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. " You may want to dial it back a few notches - trust me, I tend to reach for the hyperbole a little too quickly myself. (Note - I read subscribe to Elon Musk's twitter feed, and he's a lot more balanced on SpaceX than he is on Tesla)
    - everyone 13y ago
      yeah, noted :)
  - marvin 13y ago
    On the other hand, they did eventually post video of their two most spectacular crashes: The first Falcon 1 launch where the rocket spiraled out of control, and the third Falcon 1 launch where the first stage crashed into the second stage, making the second-stage engine ignite inside the first stage fairing. You would not see a private spaceflight company set against transparency do this. Especially the latter example, seeing as it could be interpreted as a stupid mistake.
- rplnt 13y ago
  IIRC they weren't exactly open about losing a satellite in a ISS resupply mission[1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload
  - outworlder 13y ago
    They only "lost" the sattelite because NASA rejected their attempts at raising its orbit.
  - hga 13y ago
    I remember them being forthright about it. They also said, and I can believe it, that the 4 days the satellite spent in orbit were very useful to the customer. It was a prototype, and there's a big difference between putting on a shaker table, baking and freezing it, putting it in a vacuum chamber ... and actually putting it in space. So Orbcomm was able to figure out a lot of stuff and I'm sure the price was very nice.
pjscott 13y ago
A few entries from Elon Musk's Twitter feed, from the first launch attempt a couple days ago: > Launch aborted by autosequence due to slower than expected thrust ramp. Seems ok on closer inspection. Cycling countdown. > Increasing helium spin start pressure. Probably <50% chance of passing all aborts, but worth a try. Countdown resuming ... > We called manual abort. Better to be paranoid and wrong. Bringing rocket down to borescope engines ... > All known rocket anomalies resolved. Will spend another day rechecking to be sure. Launch attempt tmrw eve w Wed as backup. Press releases are press releases, and a press release will always spin things as favorably as possible. If you look at the other sources, though, they seem awfully forthright.
greedo 13y ago
And of course, NASA never whitewashes anything? Nor the NRO and the DOD?

InclinedPlane 13y ago

They seem to be incredibly open to me. They have been very transparent about pretty much every hiccup and misstep they've had in any flight. I think you are comparing them to an ideal which has never existed in reality.

everyone 13y ago
They cut the live feed when an issue came up on one of their dragon capsule launches.
- zackbloom 13y ago
  You don't think NASA wouldn't have cut the feed on the Challenger disaster if they could have?
  - rplnt 13y ago
    Perhaps, but there were people on Challenger. Not that it would look any different on cameras...
  - twistedpair 13y ago
    They did cut the feed. The actual video feed kept going until range control fired the FTS to destroy the SRB's that kept flying along after the shuttle was blown apart. You didn't get to see that back in the 80's. That footage had only recently been released.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  There is a little bit of hyperbole involved when you have an issue with them cutting the live feed on one of their missions and then claiming: "SpaceX seem to cover up any hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet 'flawless' report of their missions. " You may want to dial it back a few notches - trust me, I tend to reach for the hyperbole a little too quickly myself. (Note - I read subscribe to Elon Musk's twitter feed, and he's a lot more balanced on SpaceX than he is on Tesla)
  - everyone 13y ago
    yeah, noted :)
- marvin 13y ago
  On the other hand, they did eventually post video of their two most spectacular crashes: The first Falcon 1 launch where the rocket spiraled out of control, and the third Falcon 1 launch where the first stage crashed into the second stage, making the second-stage engine ignite inside the first stage fairing. You would not see a private spaceflight company set against transparency do this. Especially the latter example, seeing as it could be interpreted as a stupid mistake.
rplnt 13y ago
IIRC they weren't exactly open about losing a satellite in a ISS resupply mission[1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload
- outworlder 13y ago
  They only "lost" the sattelite because NASA rejected their attempts at raising its orbit.
- hga 13y ago
  I remember them being forthright about it. They also said, and I can believe it, that the 4 days the satellite spent in orbit were very useful to the customer. It was a prototype, and there's a big difference between putting on a shaker table, baking and freezing it, putting it in a vacuum chamber ... and actually putting it in space. So Orbcomm was able to figure out a lot of stuff and I'm sure the price was very nice.

pjscott 13y ago

A few entries from Elon Musk's Twitter feed, from the first launch attempt a couple days ago: > Launch aborted by autosequence due to slower than expected thrust ramp. Seems ok on closer inspection. Cycling countdown. > Increasing helium spin start pressure. Probably <50% chance of passing all aborts, but worth a try. Countdown resuming ... > We called manual abort. Better to be paranoid and wrong. Bringing rocket down to borescope engines ... > All known rocket anomalies resolved. Will spend another day rechecking to be sure. Launch attempt tmrw eve w Wed as backup. Press releases are press releases, and a press release will always spin things as favorably as possible. If you look at the other sources, though, they seem awfully forthright.

greedo 13y ago

And of course, NASA never whitewashes anything? Nor the NRO and the DOD?