And there is precedence for this with the Falcon 9, where SpaceX was selling the V1.1 capability far in advance of fielding the V1.1.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/08/2015 08:01 pmAnd there is precedence for this with the Falcon 9, where SpaceX was selling the V1.1 capability far in advance of fielding the V1.1. Yeah, that's called lying. Or false advertising. The problem is they were stating it as Falcon 9 performance, not future-enhancement-version performance (v1.1). It was widely believed that that was the performance of the original Falcon 9.Either it's lying, or really awful systems analysis. Maybe this has been one of the problems with certification.....
No, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/17/2015 11:32 pmNo, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.Nice try.I have the original pamphlet they were handing out at the 1st Space Symposium they attended. It has Falcon 9 performance numbers on it. No mention of any Block II. The numbers are off by 30 to 40%.So where was the actual Falcon 9 1.0 performance ever quoted???Wouldn't the original pictures of the Falcon Heavy reflect the longer booster(s)? If they knew that was never going to fly they would have showed the enhanced version with longer cores and upper stage.
The original F9 did not end up reaching the performance they targeted.
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/17/2015 11:55 pmThe original F9 did not end up reaching the performance they targeted.But that's my "issue". Did they not reach the performance because of poor analysis? Weight came in much heavier? It clearly shows a short Falcon 9, the 3x3 engine configuration, thrust and ISP for the propulsion (1C). And then the performance numbers are for another rocket that will be flying 5 years later?? I just don't buy it. But that's my opinion.
Which is worth how much? Are you threatening to sue SpaceX? Are you trying to drum up popular opposition? Are you trying to be a whistleblower?The business relationships, and whatever agreements are reached, between SpaceX and its clients are exactly between them -- not us. Indignation serves you no purpose.
All payloads have ended up in their prescribed orbits, so I guess performance never fell short of promises.What's giving you acid is that public information wasn't detailed enough. First show me a launch company that lists performance and pricing in a neat little table on their public web site, then we can talk about certification.
So... SpaceX deliberately misled the public by publicizing a slightly better version of F9 v1.0 but INSTEAD giving us a rocket with nearly twice v1.0's performance. I know, I know, it's HORRIBLE, but true!
Quote from: meekGee on 03/18/2015 01:19 amAll payloads have ended up in their prescribed orbits, so I guess performance never fell short of promises.What's giving you acid is that public information wasn't detailed enough. First show me a launch company that lists performance and pricing in a neat little table on their public web site, then we can talk about certification.You mean like the Orbcom-OG2 payload? Why bother upgrade to 1.1 if performance never fell short?I don't want more detail. Doesn't ULA have a mission planner's guide that lists performance? I also never requested ANYTHING about pricing. All prices are negotiable to some extent. I really don't want to talk to you about certification.After browsing through the forum topics, I'm starting to realize this is a SpaceX forum. It seems like 80 to 90% of all posts are "SpaceX will/can do everything topics" Even the launch coverage has about a 20 to 1 ratio.
It's cute, because I could see the Orbcom red herring coming even as I was typing my post... But figured I might as well give you the benefit of the doubt.So for kicks - what does Orbcomm have to do with anything? That was an engine-out event, combined with HSF flight safety rules, and absolutely nothing to do with published or actual performance. Or is it that they also lied because they didn't write on the website that anomalies happen and the chance for success is <100%
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2015 01:22 amSo... SpaceX deliberately misled the public by publicizing a slightly better version of F9 v1.0 but INSTEAD giving us a rocket with nearly twice v1.0's performance. I know, I know, it's HORRIBLE, but true!If it has twice the performance, then initial estimates were off 100%. So what was v1.0 performance capability?I never claimed v1.1 didn't live up to it's estimates. Just that v1.0 didn't come close.
Almost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2015 01:58 amAlmost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.Thanks for your answer. So was the capability of v1.0 ever published then? Anywhere or anytime?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/18/2015 01:58 amAlmost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.Thanks for your answer. So was the capability of v1.0 ever published then? Anywhere or anytime?Falcon 9 first flew in June of 2010. When did the first information about v1.1's (Block II) come into public. Was it not until 2012?