LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14

[jimvela]

Did you predicted same fate for flight 4 and 5. If you check flight compare with rocket it was perfect. The only more stable is Space shuttle, if you check pictures. But it cost 1 billion one flight ouch.

First off, figure out which user you're replying to- I'm a different Jim than the fellow you're thinking of.  And I've been generally very supportive of SpaceX.  When they do well, I call it, and if I see otherwise I call that too.

Second, this launch was not perfect, nor was this launch campaign perfict (vibration isolators, microsat removal, anyone?)

Third, regarding

The only more stable is Space shuttle, if you check pictures.

I have friends working on other launch vehicles whom would not agree with that assessment.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

SpaceX did put a customer spacecraft in orbit, and I welcome the arrival of another company that can provide launch services.  It's good for me, we only build spacecraft, instruments, and subsystems.  Affordable launch is great for me, it means more opportunities for customers to spend their dollars on my hardware rather than send those very dollars to a launch services provider. 

Regarding the shuttle, that's just sour grapes.  I'm in the camp of the folks wanting a new exploration system that is affordable, but will tip my hat to the STS- when they're retired and in museums, there may not be anything like them for generations to come.

[Antares]

It seems strangely out-of-character for them not to make more of a noise about their first successful full mission.

By the way it their second successfully launch not first one, as you mention.

No, they didn't operate the payload separation system on the first mission, which was otherwise successful but therefore not "full".

[Spacenuts]

If my memory serves me correctly I believe Elon stated that he would probably never see profitability from the Falcon 1.  Setting aside the obvious discussion on accounting methods I would venture to say the "1" is almost profit free at the current price they offer or priced with a margin but not expecting the volume needed to put to rest the large r & d budget incured when they were putting the company together.  I would bet against an earlier comment that it is a "loss leader" such as some stores provide to get customers in the door though that is certainly a possibility.

[edkyle99]

Good grief y'all.  The people who needed to know about the launch knew.  Go back up the thread and notice where Chris's confirmation of spacecraft sep came from: NASA HQ.

And the people who need to know about the pricing of Falcons know.

Since the U.S. government is by far the biggest SpaceX customer, it would serve the company well, I think, to build a line of communication with the taxpaying public, who will be paying its bills.  The easiest way to do this would be to issue, *in a timely manner*, a simple press release that might get picked up by a wider group of news sources - to get the news out beyond the sites we space groupies all haunt.  Timely press releases after launches are *standard practice* in the line of business that SpaceX is striving to be in. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Sesquipedalian]

No, they didn't operate the payload separation system on the first mission, which was otherwise successful but therefore not "full".

Didn't they have a "simulated payload separation" immediately after MECO (well before the circularization burn)?  I'm pretty sure I remember that from the webcast at the time.

No idea how you "simulate" a payload separation if you have no payload.

[madscientist197]

Didn't they have a test payload -- 'ratsat'? Not actually a functional satellite, of course.

[jcm]

Didn't they have a test payload -- 'ratsat'? Not actually a functional satellite, of course.

Yes, but it only "simulatedly" separated. I guess they tested sending the electrical signal from the second stage to where the release mechanism would have been, but didn't have a real release mechanism.

Ratsat is still attached to the second stage, in a 621 x 643 km orbit, by design.

[Antares]

Timely press releases after launches are *standard practice* in the line of business that SpaceX is striving to be in.

51D, as usual, told us why the public release wasn't timely.

[Pittsburgh]

A company with now 800-ish employees doesn't have one person available with authority to communicate that company's greatest success to date to the news media?  I don't buy it. 

Or for that matter, update the launch manifest on their website.

[butters]

I don't think it's that hard to understand why ATSB and associated Malaysian institutions might not have wanted their launch provider to engage in shameless American-style self-promotion.  It's their money.

The F9 maiden flight and the COTS flights will almost certainly receive the public relations treatment we've come to expect from SpaceX.  Ditto if they ever launch Bigelow habs or other privately-funded payloads.

The small sat market is at something of a crossroads, so the long-term outlook for the F1/F1e-class product is hard to predict.  Does SpaceX think they can turn a profit in this segment?  Will future developments like the Raptor hydrolox upper stage apply only to the F9-class product?  To what extent, if any, is F1 merely a stepping stone to F9?

Stay tuned...

[corrodedNut]

No, they didn't operate the payload separation system on the first mission, which was otherwise successful but therefore not "full".

Didn't they have a "simulated payload separation" immediately after MECO (well before the circularization burn)?  I'm pretty sure I remember that from the webcast at the time.

No idea how you "simulate" a payload separation if you have no payload.

According to SpaceX update archives, falcon1 flight 2 "deployed the satellite mass simulator ring at the end of the flight", although, not at orbital velocity.

Does that count as a successful test of the spacecraft seperation system? I think it does, but others may disagree.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Does that count as a successful test of the spacecraft seperation system? I think it does, but others may disagree.

Yes, it does.  However, the key point you made was that flight 2 didn't make it to orbit.  So, flight 5 is the first time all Falcon-1 system operated as intended in a fully-operational flight.

[kevin-rf]

Or for that matter, update the launch manifest on their website.

Is spaceX's primary purpose running websites or building rockets? Will an out of date website cost them any sales, will someone do a google search and say, my my, nice website, think I'll order a falcon. It would be nice, but keeping an website up todate requires people, just like building Faclon 1e, 9, and dragon. It is more important for them to talk to there customers, you know the people that buy the launches. As long as they are doing that, the website is a bonus for the rest of us to drool over... Really, updating it constantly is wasted money.

...gosh I just defended SpaceX. Must shower

[Antares]

A company with now 800-ish employees doesn't have one person available with authority to communicate that company's greatest success to date to the news media?  I don't buy it.

Or for that matter, update the launch manifest on their website.

Well, the Jacobins have scared me away from this discussion.  My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

[ugordan]

My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

Seconded. I figured there'd be people downplaying a successful launch, but frankly, this is getting absurd. SpaceX isn't ULA, Arianespace, ILS, whatever. What's with these expectations they behave like them in some respects, but not in others (price, etc)?

Think about whether a serious customer will really judge a launch service provider based on their website and their exposure in the daily newspapers.

[Paul Adams]

My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

Seconded. I figured there'd be people downplaying a successful launch, but frankly, this is getting absurd. SpaceX isn't ULA, Arianespace, ILS, whatever. What's with these expectations they behave like them in some respects, but not in others (price, etc)?

Think about whether a serious customer will really judge a launch service provider based on their website and their exposure in the daily newspapers.

I will third that!

[William Barton]

A company with now 800-ish employees doesn't have one person available with authority to communicate that company's greatest success to date to the news media?  I don't buy it.

Or for that matter, update the launch manifest on their website.

Well, the Jacobins have scared me away from this discussion.  My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

Agreed. If I had been Musk, last September, I might well have turned my back on the "nattering nabobs of negativism"*, turned off the website, and gone about my business.

* I wonder if anyone much younger than me remembers the speeches of VP Spiro Agnew, who tried to get us headed to Mars, post-Apollo, and then got caught cheating on his income taxes. He had a way with words, anyway.

[edkyle99]

My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

Seconded. I figured there'd be people downplaying a successful launch, but frankly, this is getting absurd. SpaceX isn't ULA, Arianespace, ILS, whatever. What's with these expectations they behave like them in some respects, but not in others (price, etc)?

Think about whether a serious customer will really judge a launch service provider based on their website and their exposure in the daily newspapers.

My messages are not meant to be a "gripe" or complaint.  I only intend to point out that SpaceX could do much better at communicating with the press - and that has little to do with their web site.

Anyone reading this who is a U.S. taxpayer is a "SpaceX customer".  SpaceX has an opportunity to "wow" these "customers", by telling them how it might be able to save them money, for example.

 - Ed Kyle

[William Barton]

My last words are that y'all gripe at them no matter what they do.

Seconded. I figured there'd be people downplaying a successful launch, but frankly, this is getting absurd. SpaceX isn't ULA, Arianespace, ILS, whatever. What's with these expectations they behave like them in some respects, but not in others (price, etc)?

Think about whether a serious customer will really judge a launch service provider based on their website and their exposure in the daily newspapers.

My messages are not meant to be a "gripe" or complaint.  I only intend to point out that SpaceX could do much better at communicating with the press - and that has little to do with their web site.

Anyone reading this who is a U.S. taxpayer is a "SpaceX customer".  SpaceX has an opportunity to "wow" these "customers", by telling them how it might be able to save them money, for example.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes. And every time they did, in the past, the either got laughed at or accused of "hype" (to put it politely).

[William Barton]

To be fair, after the flt 3 debacle, I pointed out if Musk wanted to have a credible media presense, he could just hire some RTV&P students from the nearest community college. It ain't rocket science. But I don't blame him for not caring what we'all think.