Exactly what is the problem Ed? You don't let a chance go by to display your dismay with commercial companies not showing their failures. This is not NASA. The things these companies do are not public domain. They have every legal right to keep information about these failures from the general public, regardless of them being financed with tax-payers dollars. This is the world of proprietary information. This is how it works. This is how commercial PR works. You celebrate the things that go right, and you downplay the things that went wrong.That's not new. It has been standard MO since the very start of the aerospace industry.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/30/2013 12:13 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2013 11:56 amThanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.But that would have happened as she scrubbed off speed and diverged from the runway unto the soft sand, which although allowed DC to dig on to her left and presumable over, but cushion the impact.Does that sound fair Chris?I think that's fair. I also think it's fair to say it "looked" a lot worse than it was, with all the sand/dust/fake TPS. I'm betting that's a good reason as to why they haven't released that part of the video. Could easily be dramatized (not by the space flight media).....and it would do them no good to have screenshots of that all over websites and news papers.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/30/2013 11:56 amThanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.But that would have happened as she scrubbed off speed and diverged from the runway unto the soft sand, which although allowed DC to dig on to her left and presumable over, but cushion the impact.Does that sound fair Chris?
Thanks again for the nice words! Means a lot, because you're the readers. Quote from: jtrame on 10/30/2013 09:58 amDid it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright? She took a tumble. They were really careful to avoid words like crash, tumble, flip - but she did. Trust me, I know. But again, she's a strong little girl to do that and "survive". Sure, she looks a mess on the outside, but inside is what counts.
Did it take a tumble? They seem to be saying now that it did not. Skidded sideways off the runway in a cloud of dust and came to a stop upright?
I can imagine Elon Musk telling prospective customers that there's a possibility you'll end up a bionic man after a flight on DC, while not telling them about the minor glitches on each and every SpaceX mission.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 07:52 amExactly what is the problem Ed? You don't let a chance go by to display your dismay with commercial companies not showing their failures. This is not NASA. The things these companies do are not public domain. They have every legal right to keep information about these failures from the general public, regardless of them being financed with tax-payers dollars. This is the world of proprietary information. This is how it works. This is how commercial PR works. You celebrate the things that go right, and you downplay the things that went wrong.That's not new. It has been standard MO since the very start of the aerospace industry.As far as I'm concerned, these are still essentially public projects. They would not exist without our (taxpayer) money. They are competing to carry our astronauts to our space station. We should know the facts, at least to the extent that NASA previously provided the facts. By the standards you describe, if SLS-51L had been a "commercial" launch someone would have pushed a big red button to cut off the NASA-TV feed (which would have been a delayed feed) when the failure occurred. No news media would have been invited to witness the launch either. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: MarkM on 10/30/2013 12:09 pmHi Chris, Thanks for the great article, as always! I have one question - was the airspeed at landing for this test flight similar to what would be expected on an actual reteurn from orbit? MarkThey told me that the planned return from orbit landing speed was 191 knots.
Hi Chris, Thanks for the great article, as always! I have one question - was the airspeed at landing for this test flight similar to what would be expected on an actual reteurn from orbit? Mark
And your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.
I also want to thank you for a great article, Chris. It was your usual factual and thorough reporting, but with an eye on the larger picture, which I appreciated. It was also an enjoyable read, with a style and tone I found most engaging.It seems to me that NASA's upcoming review of this 1st ALT flight will be key, and whether they concur that the milestone was met or not. If not, hopefully the repairs & landing gear correction can be made in a short period of time, and she can repeat the flight with a smooth landing rollout as a conclusion.Edit: Hey, I reached my 1000th post! Where's my NSF coffee mug?
Quote from: woods170 on 10/30/2013 03:00 pmAnd your analogy to STS-51L does not apply. That was supposedly an operational flight. The early flights of Falcon 1 (SpaceX sitting on that footage) and the recent Dreamchaser free flight were test flights. Different rules with regards to PR generally apply to testflights, particularly when the test-subject is born out of a non-public project.Was CRS-2 an operational flight? Someone hit the big red button during that mission. - Ed Kyle
Edit: Hey, I reached my 1000th post! Where's my NSF coffee mug?
SLS-51L