Agree that the limited liability situation/ contract is the justification for taxpayers footing the bill on this one.
In the future, I prefer to see an open competition for these launches instead of relying on a monopoly launcher. I am prepared to startup Polauncher Bear Rocket Co. to compete with Spacex.
No success rate number link yet? down votes only? I’ll wait for a meaningful reply. It likely won’t happen. The failure rate is far too high to get people on those rockets.
January 24, 2018 at 5:58 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Yogtard, launching something into space is far harder than flying am airliner. Apples and oranges. Clueless.
January 23, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Curtis Quick says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
0
They have a launch success rate of 46/47, or 97.8%. Not perfect, but even the Space Shuttle had casualties. At least SpaceX has a survivable abort option that has been/will be better tested than SLS. Of all the spacecraft available, I think SpaceX will be seen as the safest.
The Muskrats are out in full force on this comment page. Censoring anyone who dares to challenge the integrity of EM. It’s good to know he has faithful followers who don’t believe in competition and free speech…. so that we can spread that elsewhere on the web.
Who are you even talking to? SpaceX won contracts based on their expertise, timetables and projections for readiness and overall safety. That is literally the free market at work.
And EM is a libertarian, as far as I know. He probably values free speech and free enterprise than anyone on this board, especially many of the types who are instead all about protectionism, bailouts, and subsidies (but only when it suits them, then they hate all those things).
Please refrain from clogging up this board and site by picking fights with everyone who disagrees with you, whether respectfully or otherwise.
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I see you are creating competition with a few Libitterals for foulest. personal attack comments. Keep going; you may surpass them if you try harder!
Reply
Polar,
While some people on here do use personal attacks, you have to realize that you it is not only one sided. I want to point out that you have used personal attacks on here, along with some other people who share your views. I will say that all sides need to stop using personal attacks, but you cannot expect it to stop when you use libitterals for liberals. Have respect for the other side, which is lacking if you use these insults.
This is the most stupid headline ever. The American Taxpayer bought and paid for the Zuma Satellite no matter whether it was successful or not. The US government does not insure any of it’s birds.
Everything above the second stage was US property, including the payload adapter. Northrup did not trust SpaceX to even see the payload or HAVE ANY INTERACTION WITH IT !
This was more government bureaucracy and waste, in action.
SpaceX did not lose the satellite. They were not responsible for the satellite or it’s attached adapter/deployer. Normally SpaceX supplied the adapter but in this case Lockheed wanted ti use their own. Also, even If SpaceX lost 10 satellites they would still be cheaper than historical launch costs.
How is SpaceX even partly to blame? When Northrop Grumman handed Zuma over to SpaceX it was already sealed in the payload fairing. SpaceX had no access to the payload before launch. They were in no position to check and see that everything Northrop Grumman did was good and proper. Northrop Grumman supplied the launch adapter that was supposed to deploy Zuma. All the data says the falcon 9 launch was just fine. Even the Air Force agrees that the Falcon launch was fine. At t+ 5:18 it was announced that the payload fairing had jettisoned, the second stage proceeded into the proper orbit and at the programmed time (after about 1.5 orbits) the Falcon second stage performed a de-orbit burn and reentered the atmosphere as planned. I don’t see anypoint where SpaceX could take even part of the blame here. Please help me understand your point.
SpaceX is providing launch services at a lower price that the competition by far. Of course, since the government is purchasing those services, the taxpayer is the one ultimately paying. Does it not make sense for the taxpayer to get the best price possible? Of course, the government could pay more than double to another launch service provider, but then the taxpayer is out all the more. SpaceX provides the best deal – it would be wasteful to ignore such a good opportunity.
All of the headlines say “SpaceX”and yet anyone who has had access to the Falcon 9 data (NASA, The Air Force, Iridium, other customers) say the rocket performed nominally. Yesterday Lt. Gen. John Thompson of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center has supported SpaceX stating “Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX’s Falcon 9 certification status.” a certification that SpaceX had to go through hell to get through in order to break up the monopoly ULA had, including a lawsuit just to be considered. SpaceX’s customers are also showing their support for the 4 launches they have planned for next month. We all watched the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch and land. We saw the second stage light up and head East as expected. If that docking adapter did fail then it is Northrop Grumman’s fault the satellite did not reach the proper orbit because they insisted on using their own adapter. It was supposed the separate from the second stage and ignite it’s own engines to complete the orbital burn. So either it stayed connected and drifted back into the atmosphere or it ignited and blew up because it was still attached. The fact that SpaceX has been cleared to test the Falcon Heavy and continue on with their launch schedule is a huge contrast to their delays in the 2015 and 2016 launch failures. They would be grounded right now if they were at fault.
If this was a large government contract, then there should have been a performance bond posted to protect tax payers dollars. It is required by law. The bond would guarantee that SpaceX performed building the rocket to spec on schedule and/or performed a certain output (ie. getting the satellite into orbit). Where is the performance bond to protect tax payers dollars?
That is because when things go wrong the government knows that they can always take it out of Uranus.
The headline really makes it seem like SpaceX is at fault for this scenario.
That’s a constructive comment. You are right. Headline has been changed. Thanks.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Spacex is not a monopoly, just high profile and highly competitive.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
95% success rate…… why would they. You must work for ULA…… How does it feel to have the free market put you and your cronies out of business?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yogtard, launching something into space is far harder than flying am airliner. Apples and oranges. Clueless.
They have a launch success rate of 46/47, or 97.8%. Not perfect, but even the Space Shuttle had casualties. At least SpaceX has a survivable abort option that has been/will be better tested than SLS. Of all the spacecraft available, I think SpaceX will be seen as the safest.
you will certainly have plenty of rocket fuel! Your blow-hard hot air would put any rocket into orbit.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The Muskrats are out in full force on this comment page. Censoring anyone who dares to challenge the integrity of EM. It’s good to know he has faithful followers who don’t believe in competition and free speech…. so that we can spread that elsewhere on the web.
Who are you even talking to? SpaceX won contracts based on their expertise, timetables and projections for readiness and overall safety. That is literally the free market at work.
And EM is a libertarian, as far as I know. He probably values free speech and free enterprise than anyone on this board, especially many of the types who are instead all about protectionism, bailouts, and subsidies (but only when it suits them, then they hate all those things).
Please refrain from clogging up this board and site by picking fights with everyone who disagrees with you, whether respectfully or otherwise.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar,
While some people on here do use personal attacks, you have to realize that you it is not only one sided. I want to point out that you have used personal attacks on here, along with some other people who share your views. I will say that all sides need to stop using personal attacks, but you cannot expect it to stop when you use libitterals for liberals. Have respect for the other side, which is lacking if you use these insults.
George, how about you sign up for the first trip they offer?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I’ll invest in that if it’s a one-way rocket and you go on the first one.
Better still, we will take up a collection and send you on your way. By the way, in heaven, there is a gate and a wall and extreme vetting.
This is the most stupid headline ever. The American Taxpayer bought and paid for the Zuma Satellite no matter whether it was successful or not. The US government does not insure any of it’s birds.
Everything above the second stage was US property, including the payload adapter. Northrup did not trust SpaceX to even see the payload or HAVE ANY INTERACTION WITH IT !
This was more government bureaucracy and waste, in action.
“Launching spacecraft into orbit is a risky business,” said Peter Elson.
I wonder what Peter charges to speak to groups about little known facts such as the one he posted here ?
SpaceX did not lose the satellite. They were not responsible for the satellite or it’s attached adapter/deployer. Normally SpaceX supplied the adapter but in this case Lockheed wanted ti use their own. Also, even If SpaceX lost 10 satellites they would still be cheaper than historical launch costs.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
How is SpaceX even partly to blame? When Northrop Grumman handed Zuma over to SpaceX it was already sealed in the payload fairing. SpaceX had no access to the payload before launch. They were in no position to check and see that everything Northrop Grumman did was good and proper. Northrop Grumman supplied the launch adapter that was supposed to deploy Zuma. All the data says the falcon 9 launch was just fine. Even the Air Force agrees that the Falcon launch was fine. At t+ 5:18 it was announced that the payload fairing had jettisoned, the second stage proceeded into the proper orbit and at the programmed time (after about 1.5 orbits) the Falcon second stage performed a de-orbit burn and reentered the atmosphere as planned. I don’t see anypoint where SpaceX could take even part of the blame here. Please help me understand your point.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The businesses didn’t merge and don’t have shared ownership or shared governance. Joint Venture?! Nope! Please try again.
Don’t tax payers pay for everything elon musk???
SpaceX is providing launch services at a lower price that the competition by far. Of course, since the government is purchasing those services, the taxpayer is the one ultimately paying. Does it not make sense for the taxpayer to get the best price possible? Of course, the government could pay more than double to another launch service provider, but then the taxpayer is out all the more. SpaceX provides the best deal – it would be wasteful to ignore such a good opportunity.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Correct, the government has kept Tesla from going under.
All of the headlines say “SpaceX”and yet anyone who has had access to the Falcon 9 data (NASA, The Air Force, Iridium, other customers) say the rocket performed nominally. Yesterday Lt. Gen. John Thompson of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center has supported SpaceX stating “Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX’s Falcon 9 certification status.” a certification that SpaceX had to go through hell to get through in order to break up the monopoly ULA had, including a lawsuit just to be considered. SpaceX’s customers are also showing their support for the 4 launches they have planned for next month. We all watched the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch and land. We saw the second stage light up and head East as expected. If that docking adapter did fail then it is Northrop Grumman’s fault the satellite did not reach the proper orbit because they insisted on using their own adapter. It was supposed the separate from the second stage and ignite it’s own engines to complete the orbital burn. So either it stayed connected and drifted back into the atmosphere or it ignited and blew up because it was still attached. The fact that SpaceX has been cleared to test the Falcon Heavy and continue on with their launch schedule is a huge contrast to their delays in the 2015 and 2016 launch failures. They would be grounded right now if they were at fault.
If this was a large government contract, then there should have been a performance bond posted to protect tax payers dollars. It is required by law. The bond would guarantee that SpaceX performed building the rocket to spec on schedule and/or performed a certain output (ie. getting the satellite into orbit). Where is the performance bond to protect tax payers dollars?