Quote from: docmordrid on 01/23/2018 06:31 pmISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made public.All of it would be mooted by national security concerns. There is very little chance such a suit would ever make it past a motion to dismiss, not to mention SpaceX would have to demonstrate damages - an essential element of any cognizable claim. And that they cannot do - customers aren’t leaving, there is no publicly traded stock to tank, and therefore no market capitalization to measure ...
ISTM SpaceX wouldn't sue because pre-trial discovery could reveal things ZUMA_Owner rather not be made public.
So one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 06:55 pmSo one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?
Quote from: tvg98 on 01/23/2018 07:19 pmQuote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 06:55 pmSo one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?
No, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.
That I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.
I don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.
Yup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.
I trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)
True, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 08:15 pmQuote from: tvg98 on 01/23/2018 07:19 pmQuote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 06:55 pmSo one of the things that's been bothering me is something I can't back up with a reference because I can no longer track it down - so therefore mark this one up as speculation based on an imperfect memory...... When we first heard about Zuma it was before we actually knew the name. As memory serves, at that time it was mentioned that whatever Zuma was, the "client", for lack of a better word, didn't have very deep pockets and covering the cost of the launch as an issue, but SpaceX had decided to make it happen regardless because of the importance of this mission.Again - that's my recollection - and it doesn't jive with anything we've heard recently about Zuma. Then again, most of what we've heard is based on limited to no facts, and it's been a self-feeding process.Does anyone else have this recollection? I mean, lord knows I've suffered through decompression sickness and all that, but...I've found comments which do support those recollections. However, I'm assuming that the "client" in this case is NG. Now, I'm no expert but they don't seem that cash-strapped to me?Definitely not. However I still think NG as the manufacturer rather than the client. Can you put your hands on any of those comments?The ones I've seen were made by reddit user ASTRALsunder. Here's a few:QuoteNo, nothing my friends told me gave me the feeling that the customer was established. One friend did mention that the customer was pretty open and up front with SpaceX about their financial situation to give them an idea on how extremely crucial this flight was for them. I guess it was enough for SpaceX to squeeze them in risking the ire of their backlogged customers.QuoteThat I do not know, my friend. I did not press my sources for more details. The extent of my knowledge is the flight is named ZUMA/Zuma and the NET is November 15th. Customer contract details and what kind of satellite I do not know. They just emphasized the on-time part of the launch, it would be out of 39A, and on a new booster.My friends did say CRS-13's new NET is December 4th out of LC-40. SpaceX pitched the idea of a flown booster for CRS-13 to NASA and they will give them an answer in early November.QuoteI don't know if this is a new customer or not, but yes, the customer would be able to hit their revenue forecasts for the next fiscal year, and SpaceX would most likely be bestowed many future contracts. Personally, I think SpaceX's launch cadence and reliability in 2017 has impressed many customers who are now eager to sign up.https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dofpocd/?context=3QuoteYup, critical for the operator in this case. They have revenue targets to hit and shareholders to keep happy.https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2ymt/?context=3QuoteI trust the folks to told me 100%. All had the same info. It would be something if only one told me, but all told me the same. We'll find out in a month.. =)https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/doe2uuo/?context=1QuoteTrue, but my friends seemed to emphasize this one more than the others. We'll find out in a month.Edit: They super emphasized the on-time bit.https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/76c3gw/spacex_has_an_approved_license_for_10_nov_launch/dod9yjf/?context=2(Links will take you to the discussion so you can get more context as to what he's talking about)Based on his other comments he does seem to have reliable sources, so perhaps these comments are worth considering.
Thank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2018 09:09 pmThank you - that was exactly what I was looking for...And all of that is almost certainly bulls---.
Quote from: AncientU on 01/23/2018 05:17 pmSo much for 'self-insurance':QuoteSpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was UninsuredQuote “The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htmEdit: added referenceHardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.
So much for 'self-insurance':QuoteSpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was UninsuredQuote “The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htmEdit: added reference
SpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was Uninsured
“The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”
How would you insure a black program?I think we're reaching the bottom of the barrel here.
There's more baseless nonsense popping up here than the CNN comments section.
Quote from: Star One on 01/23/2018 05:57 pmQuote from: AncientU on 01/23/2018 05:17 pmSo much for 'self-insurance':QuoteSpaceX Lost Satellite on U.S. Mission Was UninsuredQuote “The policy of the U.S. government has been that they do not buy insurance. They rely on the taxpayer to foot the bill when things go wrong.”https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/01/23/478112.htmEdit: added referenceHardly new news I posted an article about this several days ago that the US taxpayers will be picking up the news for any loss.Come on, that's not fair.By the same logic, the US tax payer has been stuffing their pockets with saved insurance premiums.Self insurance simply means what it says. You are the insurance company, for better and for worse, and irrespective of how you (mis)manage your budget.