Comments on: Aviation Week looks at the launch challenges facing SpaceX over the next two years.

By: Chris Kirkendall

Chris Kirkendall — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:06:06 +0000

Well, everyone should keep in mind that NASA has missed multiple deadlines over the years – there was an article not long ago that detailed how we could’ve had Alan Shepard in space before the Russians sent Gagarin, but delays related to safety concerns caused us to “lose” the race, though, of course, we ultimately “won” it with Apollo. And remember the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed Grissom & 2 other astronauts & delayed Apollo almost 2 years. Not excusing any delays or mistakes by SpaceX, but let’s face it, it’s a dangerous business, sometimes not everything goes as planned & safety of the human crew must be the #1 priority, even if it leads to delays. I think Congress understands that as well – it’s not like delays in manned spacelflight would be anything they hadn’t seen before. I think we’ll have a little better handle on things after this next COTS demo flight, whichever way it goes (hopefully successful)…

By: Craig Beasley

Craig Beasley — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:17:56 +0000

In reply to Kelly Starks. I think it worth a caveat to point out that the poster-child status doesn't reflect the eventual reality that spaceflight can't always be governmental in scope. But the Congress certainly feels that way when SpaceEx just keeps missing milestones and making mistakes under the aegis of a government contract.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:03:00 +0000

In reply to Chris Kirkendall. Its going to take a lot more then a luck launch to quell fears, much less compensate for their track record so far. They have become the poster child in congress on why COTS and CCDev - and by extension any commercialized launch -is a stupid and dangerous idea.

By: Chris Kirkendall

Chris Kirkendall — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:18:51 +0000

Well let’s see how they do with the scheduled April launch to supply the ISS – if that comes off well, it could allay a lot of the fears. I for one hope they succeed…

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:55:30 +0000

In reply to Joe2.

>.. they are not cheerleading (which seems to be the default Internet position) for Space X …

Sadly true (and as well for CBS on a article about Musk this evening). Its all reminding me of folks before the dot com bubble days – unreasoning enthusiasm, regardless of the facts.

I’m not sure if its the Heinleinian romance of the idea, or desperation.

By: Joe2

Joe2 — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:30:58 +0000

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

I guess one person’s “strangely hostile” is another person’s honest reporting.

While they are not cheerleading (which seems to be the default Internet position) for Space X, they merely reported on the facts of the situation.

By: Craig Beasley

Craig Beasley — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:52:35 +0000

There is no guarantee that they are going to build a better product. I personally predict that when NASA’s manned spaceflight requirements become applicable to them, the SpaceEx product will suddenly be deemed far inferior to that of either Boeing or Lockheed.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:55:22 +0000

>…because its successes will far exceed the failures, and they are clearly offering a
> better product for less money.

The first would be a change for them you shouldn’t expect — so’s the secound really. They are drifting into being a high cost, high risk provider -with a very high failure rate across the board.