You seriously need to get some kind of a grip.

“I guess this better sum up this “debate”.”

Except it seems you’re changing, yet again, what you’re talking about. Previously you said “Get back to me when SpaceX can make the one rocket they actually have work.”, and I pointed out that the Falcon 9 did work for it’s primary mission. The Falcon 9 also had a flawless previous flight on the COTS-2/3 flight, so they actually do have a history of rockets that actually work.

Now you’re slicing and dicing to pick out something that shows the Falcon 9 isn’t perfect. Well OK, it’s not perfect. There, I said it. We good?

“I try very hard to avoid the kind of personal insults you (and others around here) deal in routinely, but if anyone has “a medical issue” that needs addressing it is not me.”

Well that’s good to know, but how do you explain your forgetfulness?

No need to answer, as I’m off to new conversations…

I guess this better sum up this “debate”.

– They lost another payload that was flying on CRS-1.
– The Falcon 9 literally blew chunks off itself during ascent.
– There is currently an investigation underway to determine the cause of the incident.
– The Falcon 9 next flight has been delayed to no earlier than March 2013 (and will likely be delayed beyond that)

And you wish to characterize that as a success.

I try very hard to avoid the kind of personal insults you (and others around here) deal in routinely, but if anyone has “a medical issue” that needs addressing it is not me.

Have a nice day,

Joe

“Get back to me when SpaceX can make the one rocket they actually have work.”

What’s to get back to your about? The CRS-1 mission was a success – Dragon was put in it’s proper orbit, and it even docked at the ISS ahead of schedule.

You even admitted that it was a success, so are forgetting what you said? Sounds like a medical issue you need to address Joe…

Get back to me when SpaceX can make the one rocket they actually have work.

Breaking the mould methinks. ULA’s going to have to do something about their cost structure else their business is ‘gone’.

“Not next to them, but around the area, that is why they will not take chances on flying a rocket that has had repeated potentially dangerous malfunctions until those issues are resolved. There is always additional risk when flying any rocket, but (at least if you are the Range Safety Office) you are not going to exacerbate that risk by allowing a rocket to fly that has an unresolved known flaw.”

I would disagree with your definition of range safety. They are not rocket inspectors, so they are not validating the design of the rockets that use the range. Their job is to mitigate damage when things go wrong.

For instance, they have control over the self destruct mechanisms on each rocket, which they can activate if they feel the rocket is not following it’s intended route and could endanger people and property. They already know what the planned debris pattern is supposed to be everywhere along the route the rocket will take prior to self-destruct, so I think they would tell you that “residents” and “residents who work at CCAFS” are not in any danger. And they have blown up a lot of rockets (and watched quite a few blow up on their own), so I think they have their processes and procedures pretty well worked out.

This is a non-issue.

As to your “unresolved known flaw” comment, calling it a “known flaw” is unsubstantiated. It was a failure, and not one that had been seen previously. It might not have even been an engine issue, but one involving a tank or plumbing upstream of the engine.

And it may turn out that no root cause is ever found for this issue, especially if it is not a design issue but a manufacturing or assembly defect. That’s the problem with single use vehicles, is that it’s difficult to get absolute resolution of problems when you can’t examine the actual item.

SpaceX is also at an interesting inflection point, in that they only have one more launch of this design of the Falcon 9 before changing over to a pretty much completely new design (v1.1). If they can’t find any obvious root cause for the shutdown, then it will be up to SpaceX and NASA to determine if they will go ahead with the next flight as planned (i.e. Falcon 9 v1.0) or push out the flight to when they can use the new (and currently unproven) v1.1 of the Falcon 9.

This is not a business for the faint hearted, as Musk has explained many times. We’ll see.

Okay this time but you should not use my name in vain.