A reader informed me today about a web site called Reform Space Now whose raison d’être appears to be to oppose the House version of the NASA authorization bill, HR 5781. The web site features a one-minute narrated video that first builds up the administration’s new direction for NASA and then states, “But to some in Congress, pork for special interests is more important than the future of space travel.” The site builds upon that theme with sections like “The Broken Rocket Bailout” (about the bill’s support for Ares 1, or at least a launch vehicle that looks similar to it) and “20 Years Stuck Circling the Earth?” (which argues that Constellation, without an infusion of additional funding, would prevent humans from returning to the Moon “until well past 2030″). The site is nothing short of a broadside against the House bill.
The question is, though, who’s making this attack on HR 5781? The site is professionally done, as is the video; the statements in the various sections are detailed, citing sources ranging from trade publications to NASA and other government documents. Nowhere, though, is there any indication of who developed the site: there is no “about us” section or other contact information. The domain name “reformspacenow.com” is registered privately with a proxy service, providing no information about who obtained the domain name beyond the fact that the name was registered on July 13. The video is hosted on Vimeo, where the user “reformspacenow” joined this month and uploaded the video three days ago. Whoever developed this site clearly wants to remain behind the scenes.
Nicely done website, maybe even professionally done, but not necessarily so, a good hacker could put it together but somebodies got to fund the bandwidth???
Anti-Ares thing seems to come late in the day, Ares lost lots of fans all around once Obama said it was OK not to like it and it’s shortcoming became more publicly known.
All of us have to speak up with whatever voice we can during this, the planning stage, for NASA’s next decade! (I like harassing Congress-people to fully fund NASA-that’s my broken record).
Ferris! This looks like your work.
Maybe some of the new space companies are starting to learn how to do PR and lobbying.
Couldn’t be NASA, they don’t have much clue when it comes to effective communication LOL
LOL! Outstanding! Check it out. Did Oler create this? I’d put fins on the pig. This is the last gasp of Newspace. Yes, lets get rid of the pork, and hand NASA over to Obama’s Newspace cronies instead. Those little details about rockets and spacecraft. No problem. Heck, these smart guys can build a web site. How hard can rocket engineering be?
I didn’t realize the House Bill restored Ares I. Makes abundant sense though. Now if they would back the 10m Ares V tank we’d be set. I love being right.
There is more than a hint of desperation creeping into Obama’s message makers on all fronts. Obama’s political edifice is crumbling. The winds of change it back are blowing. America likes its NASA, its mission control, launch day on NASA TV, Shorty Powers, and go fever.
Hmm, two out the four main categories are focused on Ares I.
For conspiracy theorists (i.e. SpaceX conspiracy theorists), one could make the argument that SpaceX is attacking Ares I in general, not specifically to replace it. The direct benefactor of no Ares I would seem to be Delta IV Heavy, but at $95M/flight, Falcon 9 Heavy could be a dark horse if a competition were opened for an Orion launch vehicle.
In general, it could be just someone or group that really wants to unshackle NASA from launcher obligations, which could mean a lot of companies – and that means it could be a bunch that have pooled their play money to pay for the professional voice-over and website stuff.
I doubt we’ll know until after H.R. 5781 gets decided… if then.
Kudos to whomever produced this website!
It is well done, and factually based. Pass it on to your friends.
If you feel compelled to feed (or argue with) the trolls on this website … don’t! That is wasted energy. Spend the time more effectively by telling others to go to the website to learn the facts, and to call their Congressional Representatives.
The website will help you do this.
FWIW,
– Al
Good advice Al.
Smell it? It’s called desperation.
Mrearl wrote @ September 8th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“Smell it? It’s called desperation.”
Smells like victory to me. The only question is how big…
The video is certainly pretty slick, albeit with shoddy graphics and animation, and is in the style of a campaign commercial. It makes a number of claims that, while sourced, seem to be of dubious accuracy, also like many campaign commercials I’ve seen.
I’m not sure if this implies desperation or headiness. It likely will not greatly affect what goes on in the Congress in either direction. My prediction is a CR that keeps things gasping along on autopilot with the real work to be done by a new GOP Congress starting in January.
Since the source of the video prefers to remain anonymous, one can speculate that it is someone or some organization that might by embarrassed by having their identity revealed. One of the commercial space companies that stand to financially benefit from Obamaspace perhaps? I can’t imagine SFF or any of the other space fan boy groups not wanting to own up to this one, though perhaps they would be advised to avoid it.
By the way, since the HEFT now predicts a NEO expedition not happening before 2031, Obamaspace seems like a big bait and switch in any case.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 8th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
It makes a number of claims that, while sourced, seem to be of dubious accuracy, also like many campaign commercials I’ve seen. …
or the many statements that you have made.
this is a good effort….and Mark you are going to love it five years from now when all the change brings on a real space faring society, just like you, Kolker and I hoped for with the NAA.
lol
enjoy the end of yet another Bush turd
Robert G. Oler
Spectacular.
Funny how they are trying to scare everybody when speaking of how Ares is untested. If I remember correctly when I stood on top of the VAB with my dad in 1981 the Space Shuttle had it’s maiden voyage without ANY test flights.
Listen we need not cede the high ground it’s unfortunate politicians screwed the pooch like they always do, we need a government space system done correctly and funded correctly but we all know how washington runs. As for commercial im not opposed to it just don’t think giving them billions of our tax dollars should happen until they prove themselves with a bit of their money first. When these for profit companies have done a bit of this bring them along for the ride along side NASA.
Paul Vaccaro wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Funny how they are trying to scare everybody when speaking of how Ares is untested. If I remember correctly when I stood on top of the VAB with my dad in 1981 the Space Shuttle had it’s maiden voyage without ANY test flights…
and there were some significant problems that were not detected.
Testing is good
SpaceX and others are investing their own money…
Robert G. Oler
Paul Vaccaro wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:04 am
‘Funny how they are trying to scare everybody when speaking of how Ares is untested. If I remember correctly when I stood on top of the VAB with my dad in 1981 the Space Shuttle had it’s maiden voyage without ANY test flights.’
Yes that’s the sort of stupidity and negligence that led to two – yes two Shuttle disasters.
Mrearl wrote @ September 8th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“Smell it? It’s called desperation.” LOL You may be granting it too much credibility even as desperation. It’s irrelevant.
Paul Vaccaro wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am
“As for commercial im not opposed to it just don’t think giving them billions of our tax dollars should happen until they prove themselves with a bit of their money first.”
You do know that SpaceX privately funded their own launchers, as well as the initial development of their Dragon capsule?
In regards to the COTS program, which is a model for how commercial crew should work:
– Do you know that the COTS program mandates three rounds of non-government financing for SpaceX, which they accomplished (OSC didn’t have the requirement)?
– Do you also know that if SpaceX & OSC don’t accomplish a COTS milestone, that they don’t get paid?
Have they proved themselves on cargo with a little bit of their money?
Paul Vaccaro wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am “As for commercial im not opposed to it just don’t think giving them billions of our tax dollars should happen until they prove themselves with a bit of their money first.†<- Precisely. And keep in mind, commerical has already rec'd a 'boost' from the Treasury…. example: launch facilities for SpaceX were modified/upgraded using tax dollars from the stimulus package. But if they ever get some one up and down safely or up around and down safely, it'll pretty much neutralize opposition to loan guaranteesand gov't subsidies and silence skeptics in Congress.
Oler Oler Oler Oler
Please shut up
MrEarl – its quality work. Not mine though
Paul Vaccaro wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am
“Listen we need not cede the high ground it’s unfortunate politicians screwed the pooch like they always do, we need a government space system done correctly”
The DSP/SBIRS satellites that provide an early warning for the US against nuclear attack fly on commercial launch vehicles.
The AEHF satellites that provide command and control to our nuclear forces fly on commercial launch vehicles.
The GPS satellites that are critical to our armed forces as well as a swath of our private sector fly on commercial launch vehicles.
So do our recon satellites.
Our access to the high ground and our national security rely on commercial launch vehicles. If our most critical needs in space are met with commercial launch vehicles, then Astronauts, who are far from critical, can fly commercial as well.
Sorry Jeff OT I know but
“Augustine Panelist Rallying Support for Senate’s NASA Bill”
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100908-augustine-panelist-rallying-support-for-senates-nasa-bill.html
Mr. Oler, I read somewhere yesterday that SpaceX did not fund the first launch of its Falcon 9. Who did was not made clear, but it did say government sponsored. To me that doesnt sound like free enterprize either. What do you know of this????:
Mark: “By the way, since the HEFT now predicts a NEO expedition not happening before 2031, Obamaspace seems like a big bait and switch in any case.”
The HEFT plans include a huge Shuttle-derived HLV that will be expensive to develop and operate. They include an Orion-derived spacecraft. They include large infrastructure costs for those items. They weren’t in the Administration FY2011 budget proposal.
The HEFT plans include a huge Shuttle-derived HLV that will be expensive to develop and operate. They include an Orion-derived spacecraft. They include large infrastructure costs for those items. They weren’t in the Administration FY2011 budget proposal.
Looks like more unfunded mandates to me.
Berube – The article in question can be found here: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spacex-dragon-space-capsule-launch-target-100907.html
A number of interesting notes from this, beyond the note that the first Falcon 9 flight was USG funded. The lift-off roll is likely just a SW fix as noted but should give everyone pause as this indicates a larger problem with SW/HW integration and a less than robust verification program.
The article states (and quotes a SpaceX spokesperson) – “Another fix in the works involves relocating a liquid oxygen drain outlet that contributed to a second-stage roll captured by an on-board camera that taped the launch from liftoff to orbit insertion. ‘The second-stage roll is being fixed by changing the location of the [liquid oxygen] pump drain outlet to avoid chilling the hydraulic lines of the roll control actuator,'”.
In other words they experienced a subsystem failure that resulted in an uncontrolled/unrecoverable roll. Oler and Minor Tom will spin this 6 ways to Sunday but the bottom line is that this was a flight failure resulting from poor design (and testing). SpaceX’s apparent solution, we’ll just move it ad hoc and fly again. Where is the supporting design and analysis behind that decision? How does this design change affect other subsystems that will now experience a colder than predicted local environment? Where is the test program to qualify that new design? They missed the issue the first time, are now engineering a quick-fix to meet schedule with apparently little to no supporting analysis or testing. All-in-all, poor engineering practices.
Finally, they admit to a failed second-stage restart. Whether it was a primary objective or a secondary objective is irrelevant. This capability is required to fully meet orbit insertion requirements of whatever payload they fly. Just another indication of suspect design/test/qualify practices.
One has to wonder what is driving SpaceX to put schedule ahead of mission success.
You’re making an awful lot of assumptions about SpaceX’s practices, GuessWho, that aren’t necessarily supported by the data available to someone on the outside looking in.
Besides, there is some merit in learning from small failures on test flights. I know a lot of engineers who think we’ve become too risk averse and overly reliant on analysis.
GuessWho wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 8:16 am
” the bottom line is that this was a flight failure resulting from poor design (and testing). SpaceX’s apparent solution, we’ll just move it ad hoc and fly again.”
you obviously have never heard of flight testing. The difference so far between spaceX and NASA is that NASA did it routinly on operational vehicles…like how much foam would come off when the spec was none…
” Where is the supporting design and analysis behind that decision? How does this design change affect other subsystems that will now experience a colder than predicted local environment? Where is the test program to qualify that new design?”
Probably somewhere on their (SpaceX) IT system. Where SpaceX people can have handy reference and access to it.
Next question?
Robert G. Oler
Bottom line; Windy was RIGHT about the roll that so many of the SpaceX/New space devotees adamantly denied! :-0
So why is he a troll?
Seriously; these are the type of failures you can expect when testing new hardware. The important thing now is to see how SpaceX handles the required changes. Good luck on the Oct. flight but I’m not counting my Dragons before they’re hatched.
MrEarl wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Bottom line; Windy was RIGHT about the roll that so many of the SpaceX/New space devotees adamantly denied! :-0…
no one who watched the video denied the roll, that was clearly evidence even to a blind person.
What was nuts was Windy’s notion that the second stage was falling into the Atlantic, etc. that was the signature of his goofy post.
Robert G. Oler
“Please shut up”
Why do you hate Americans for their freedoms?
look at this GuessWho guy reading the palm of spacex with news report
they should hire him to predict the fucking weather he is so clairvoyant
wow
“but the bottom line is that this was a flight failure resulting from poor design (and testing).”
Wrong on two accounts.
A. It was a success from NASA’s point of view and as such Falcon 9 is now eligible for NASA missions.
B. You have no about the testing nor the design to determine whether is was poor. NASA has insight into the changes and the rigor that Spacex will perform.
MrEarl wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
“Bottom line; Windy was RIGHT about the roll that so many of the SpaceX/New space devotees adamantly denied!”
Just like a broken analog clock is right twice a day, Windy has said so many different versions of what happened, that it’s a fluke when he actually states something that did. But just like the clock, that doesn’t mean he will continue to issue correct statements…
@GuessWho wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Lots of sour grapes… I was about to answer but many did already. Bottom line: flight test.
Eric Cartman of So. Park says, if the U.S. space program doesn’t have nuke propulsion yet it sucks. Bill HR5781 has no provision for space nuke research then it sucks too-vote no!
Oler – “you obviously have never heard of flight testing.”
And you have obviously never heard of ground testing. Think engineering demonstration unit (EDU) going through mechanical and thermal test programs to support early design validation, think a flight design unit going through qualification testing to prove the design actually works beyond its design envelope, think the actual flight hardware going through acceptance testing to verify it was built correctly and functions as expected. You know, a disciplined engineering approach.
byeman – “B. You have no about the testing nor the design to determine whether is was poor.”
In one respect, you are correct, I do not know what their test program was. But based on engineering experience I can make the following observations: the vehicle roll was a result of freezing of the hydraulic lines feeding a roll control actuator because they were too close to a LOX drain pump outlet (fact per the SpaceX statement). A sound engineering approach would have included a detailed thermal analysis of that region to determine whether that deeply chilled pump outlet would result in a cold environment that affected nearby subsystems (like the hydraulic lines leading to a roll control actuator) and what their temperatures might drop to. They would then compare that predicted temperature to the minimum allowable temperature for those lines that would not result in freezing. For arguments sake, say that minimum temperature was 0 deg C. The disciplined approach would have been to design the thermal control system around those hydraulic lines so that their predicted temperature would never get colder than 20 deg C under normal operating conditions (this gives you margin against uncertainty in your design and uncertainty in your analysis). If necessary you perform a thermal-vac test to validate the basic design if the analysis is highly dependent on a wide range of external factors that are difficult to capture analytically. Once built, you perform qualification testing on that design where you demonstrate it meets all performance requirements at -20 deg C operating temperatures (and perhaps after a number of thermal cycles if that is an environment it is expected to experience). This demonstrates your design is robust against significantly off-nominal conditions. That is a sound engineering and test approach that eliminates the type of failures SpaceX experienced. The fact they froze their hydraulic lines indicates either a poor design (they didn’t analyze or maintained too low margins) or a poor test campaign (no EDU test to demonstrate their design was basically correct and validate their analytical model) or no qual test program. At a minimum, the qual testing would have revealed the design flaws as it over-stresses the design beyond normal operational environments. So unless they experienced an environment outside of their 3-sigma margins (highly doubtful), I would judge their engineering practices to be poor. Worse yet, they will now modify an existing flight hardware design (and a flawed design no less), on a short turn-around time with no testing in-between (given advertised launch schedules), in order to meet a previously planned launch date that was in turn chosen (at least in part) based on a successful preceding demo flight and hope that solves the problem. They may get lucky and the fix works; this time for this fix to this specific problem. Makes you wonder though what other design flaws are out there waiting to be discovered.
common-sense – “Lots of sour grapes…”
You assume I care one way or another whether SpaceX succeeds or fails. I don’t. But based on what I have witnessed so far, up to and including this last flight demo/failure, I am not ready to bet the HSF farm on them. That is purely a business-centric point of view though.
GuessWho wrote @ September 10th, 2010 at 12:20 am
“And you have obviously never heard of ground testing.”
And they did ground testing, in a number of ways, but there is only so much you can simulate. For instance, the unexpected twist when they released the clamps was not found with ground testing, and the extreme temperatures of space on the overall vehicle can not be duplicated on the ground.
Did you watch any of their Falcon 1 flight tests? What do you think they learned on their first flight? Not to use aluminum flight-critical hardware in a corrosive air environment. Duh. But they learned from that, and launched again. Partial success, but they didn’t have baffles in their fuel tank. Duh. Added baffles, and relaunched with a new engine, and whoops, too much thrust left after fuel cutoff, and they had a collision of the two stages. Doh!
Welcome to private industry, where they don’t have unlimited amounts of engineering resources, and their best testing is real testing.
“Worse yet, they will now modify an existing flight hardware design (and a flawed design no less)”
Why would you modify a design that was not flawed? If it works, you don’t touch it. If it didn’t work as planned, you address it. Your statement makes no sense.
“on a short turn-around time with no testing in-between (given advertised launch schedules)”
They don’t announce firm launch dates far in advance, and usually the closest Musk gets to a commitment is saying stuff like “Then there’s about a month of preparation, and we’ll try to launch in September, I think,” Musk said. “It’s impossible to predict the exact end of the development schedule.”
Since they only get $5M from the COTS program for a successful demo flight, they don’t have any revenue pressures on them for testing. I think you’re reading too much into what’s going on…
“Makes you wonder though what other design flaws are out there waiting to be discovered.”
And for SpaceX, they appear to not be as risk averse as you are. Which is better? Who knows, but the background Musk comes from (software) is biased towards doing – very much like Agile/XP in the software world. If they are disciplined enough, then it works great. But even in over-engineered environments like NASA, you still get failures (40% of all orbiters), so nothing is guaranteed.
“a thermal-vac test to validate the basic design if the analysis”
Yeah, right, that would be asinine. How often are upperstages TVAC’ed? It is not a spacecraft. How do you know that would even validate the design? It might require the engine to be firing for the drain to even have fluid flowing out of it. Also, the fix is to just move the line and no need for all the unnecessary analysis.
(no EDU test to demonstrate their design was basically correct and validate their analytical model) or no qual test program.
Also, Spacex has said, it is cheaper to fly a vehicle a few times than to use the chambers at Arnold.
Space X used some of their own money, $135mil, but the tax payers paid the other $435mil to get them where they are today..
Why are the taxpayers paying for private R&D, if they are so good at this, then they dont need tax payer funding.. the GAO records are very clear on these numbers, so dont foul yourself..
As may have said, I don’t mind COTS coming on board, but use ONLY your owe money to develope your vehicles, in the mean time, NASA should have been properly funded al these years and we would not be in this position today. The SDHVL vehicle is the waythis country needs to go with, its near term, it is adaptable to any number of crew modules and payloads, withh support any mission the USA needs or desires.
Support HR 5781…
clr4theapch wrote @ September 10th, 2010 at 10:48
“Space X used some of their own money, $135mil, but the tax payers paid the other $435mil to get them where they are today..”
If you’re going to deride someone, then you should really have the facts to do it. A quick way to come up to speed would be to look at the COTS GAO report from last year:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf
The max amount SpaceX could have received so far is $248M, with the majority of that coming from successful review presentations for NASA, not hardware tasks.
NASA is paying them so they can create the ability to deliver cargo to a NASA vessel (the ISS). Since this type of work is non-standard (only government organizations until now), and NASA is paying two contractors (SpaceX and OSC) to add the capabilities required. This is standard practice in many industries, where contractors are paid to take on non-standard (and sometimes dangerous) tasks.
Remember why NASA needs the COTS/CRS program – without it, the ISS will not have enough supplies to support full operation. The Shuttle was planned to shut down this year, and Ares I was not being built to support cargo deliveries. NASA needed additional cargo capability, they held an open competition, and SpaceX was one of the winners.
Why is it so bad that an American company is getting paid for the work they were contracted for? Why is it bad that a NASA contractor is NOT getting paid for the time the spend working (cost-plus), but instead only paid when they successfully complete an agreed upon task (milestone payments). Weird.
Coastal Ron – “And they did ground testing, in a number of ways, but there is only so much you can simulate. For instance, the unexpected twist when they released the clamps was not found with ground testing”
If it is a software issue, I would have thought a combination of simulation (with sims of the vehicle ACS system) running under the flight software or subsequent hardware in the loop testing (gimbals, ACS sensors, etc.) of the FSW would have indicated a commanded roll. I would expect this type of SW error to be flushed out with a disciplined FSW development approach. If it is a design flaw associated with either the ground sep system or how the vehicle engine ramp up occurs that they are now trying to correct via the FSW, then that is a bigger concern as that is a band-aid fix rather than a root-cause solution. Not enough public detail to ascertain.
“and the extreme temperatures of space on the overall vehicle can not be duplicated on the ground.”
You don’t test the entire vehicle in a T-Vac test. No sane engineer that I know would even advocate that (a position byeman erroneously attributes to my comments above). But the problem indicated encompasses a relatively small region. Thus a thermal test of the roll actuator, with its associated hydraulic plumbing, would be very easy to test in a relatively small chamber that can easily be brought to cold conditions. This type of test is warranted given its apparent close proximity to a LOX drain valve that is known to be a cold sink during pre-launch, launch, and 2nd stage operation. The other option is to forgo testing but maintain very conservative temperature margins. The bottom line is that whether they tested or not, or analyzed or not, they did not arrive at a successful design and suffered a failure that was very easy to avoid.
I also seriously doubt that this valve was open during flight (as byeman postulates), rather I suspect it is a drain valve for ground processing that is closed once the countdown reaches close to T-0 and they stop LOX loading for boil-off makeup. Thus byeman’s comment on needing engine operation to test the valve is likely misguided.
“Why would you modify a design that was not flawed? If it works, you don’t touch it. If it didn’t work as planned, you address it. Your statement makes no sense.”
You parsed my comment incorrectly. It was a flawed design that they are performing a quick fix on for the next vehicle that is already undergoing its prep for launch. Again, the fix might work for this specific problem and everything goes smoothly relative to this issue. Then again it may just uncover yet another problem that was masked by the first or result in a new failure mode that hasn’t been uncovered. It hints at a less than disciplined design approach and a less than disciplined fault management approach. Both are indications of a less than stellar approach to mission assurance.
“Did you watch any of their Falcon 1 flight tests? What do you think they learned on their first flight? Not to use aluminum flight-critical hardware in a corrosive air environment. Duh. But they learned from that, and launched again. Partial success, but they didn’t have baffles in their fuel tank. Duh. Added baffles, and relaunched with a new engine, and whoops, too much thrust left after fuel cutoff, and they had a collision of the two stages. Doh!”
Thank you for proving my point. A $50K lab test would have indicated corrosion problems of the design material without losing a LV to prove it. Fuel slosh leading to control instabilities is Propulsion Design 201 and would have been evident in dynamic testing of the flight design. That indicates a clear lack of flight design experience and a poor flight V&V/qualification program. They observed the post-shutdown thrust burps in their ground tests but didn’t have the flight experience to translate that to how it would impact flight ops at reduced atmospheric pressures. Lack of experience and a lack of design discipline to maintain sufficient design margins in the ops sequencing. Instead they fail three $20-$30M launch vehicles and damage their reputation to avoid a couple million in ground test costs. Now that is “goofy” (as Oler would say).
Apologies to Jeff, this thread has gotten way off-topic but the underlying issue of what looks to me to be a lack of experience and design discipline at SpaceX creates a lot of doubt that they are ready to assume the mantle of HSF leadership as many on this site advocate/support. Throwing more easy money toward them will help solve the problem. I just don’t think it is the US taxpayer’s responsibility to do this.
GuessWho wrote @ September 11th, 2010 at 1:19 am
“If it is a software issue, I would have thought… Not enough public detail to ascertain.”
There is if you look:
“There’s a little bit of a swirl from the exhaust of the engines, and then all of the exhaust from the gas generators that spin the turbopumps is angled a little bit, so that just puts a twist right at the start of liftoff,” Ken Bowersox, SpaceX’s vice president of safety and mission assurance, told This Week in Space. “It takes a little while for the engines to gimbal and counteract the roll.”
This is not some bottomless budget government program. You have to make calculated decisions about solutions and risks. And that’s also why Musk said he thought they had a 60% chance of success, with success being defined as a good 1st stage flight.
“Instead they fail three $20-$30M launch vehicles and damage their reputation to avoid a couple million in ground test costs.”
The retail price of a Falcon 1, which includes customer payload processing, is $10.9M – it’s on their website. Their actual cost, of course, is going to be a lot lower, so now your ratio of cost to test has come way down, and to them it was worth the business risk.
Pretty much though this boils down to you seeing all of these issues as evidence of bad engineering and bad business decisions. Since no major rocket that I know of is perfect, no matter how much testing, you certainly have a high bar.
SpaceX has a different risk/reward calculation than what’s normal in the industry (which I think has become risk averse). Will it work? Time will tell.