LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2)

[Crispy]

The blur in the original is clearly an interlacing artifact.
That means that the difference in horizon position happenned during the time difference between two sub-frames - ie 1/60 of a second. I suspect you could even work out a rough turning rate from that information. Either way, it definitely implies pitch/yaw at the moment the grab was taken.

[savuporo]

like i said, a simple deinterlace filter to clean up stills from the video.
if one has ever done some video editing, especially involving VHS tapes, you know this stuff.

[stockman]

The question was not HOW they did it, but WHY they did it? Why put out an advertisement like this that to the knowledgable of us is misleading at best? What is the point and when do we get to see the results that was promised to us twice already - both deadlines missed btw.

[clongton]

stockman - 23/4/2007  3:11 PM

The question was not HOW they did it, but WHY they did it? Why put out an advertisement like this that to the knowledgeable of us is misleading at best? What is the point and when do we get to see the results that was promised to us twice already - both deadlines missed btw.

1.   It was cleaned up to make a “pretty picture”, not to deceive, imho.
2.   It would only be misleading if it were accompanied by some statement as to the stability of the stage. It wasn’t. It’s just a picture. Frame it and put it on the cubicle wall. That’s what it’s for.
3.   Deadlines? He doesn’t owe you or me a thing. The man is paying for this from his own pockets and doesn’t have to answer to anyone.
4.   Have you sent him an email, personally, to ask why he hasn’t complied with your expectations? You can you know. His email address is on his website. Let us know what he says.
.

[stockman]

I don't want this going down a rat hole. Yes I have emailed SpaceX and I do get timely and professional responses. Remember I started out by saying I was a great believer in this company but I am a bit put off shall we say by what APPEARS on the outside to be creative marketing on thier part. The question initially asked is a fair one. Who are they trying to market this to as all the people in the marketplace that follow them already have noticed that this add is at best a tad bit misleading.

As for OWING me anything - I never once said he owed me anything. It is his company and his money and I am glad beyond belief someone is doing this.

HOWEVER - Elon himself said he would have a major update out within two weeks of the launch. - NOTHING was put out... On April 8th he puts out another update saying it would be withing two weeks. We are now in Week 3... He has missed two of his own promises. These are not my deadlines but his promises. Thats all I am pointing out.

[clongton]

Fair enough

[MKremer]

Just wondering if Elon has any kind of personal assistant to keep track of all types of schedules and promises.
If so, they're seriously failing at their job of they have noted a personal promise for some (or *any*) type of published update, even if it's "sorry, still consolidating the immense amount of data"... Updating nothing at all and missing several them as promised doesn't inspire confidence in their leadership if they've announced/promised them  by a particular date.

[Danderman]

stockman - 23/4/2007  12:49 PM  On April 8th he puts out another update saying it would be withing two weeks. We are now in Week 3... He has missed two of his own promises. These are not my deadlines but his promises. Thats all I am pointing out.

The web site said "approximately two weeks" on April 8.  Today is 2 weeks + 1 day.  It looks like some people are very impatient.

 

[stockman]

agreed. impatient and excited to see results. Hoping and wishing him the best moving forward. not here to bash Elon as I am a supporter. remember this is the SECOND approximate timeframe that is come and gone. Just a small point.

stockman - 23/4/2007  4:45 PM  agreed. impatient and excited to see results.

Often when you've time for a decent review and response, your team notices other discrepancies, adds refinements, that you try to roll into the plan going forward. My estimate was 4 weeks before they next announced, e.g. the plan stabilized.

I'd be more worried of them going too fast now than too slow. Watch to see if the launch manifest changes then.

[Comga]

Between clongton and stockman, my view is much closer to stockman's.  

We are less than objective in our enthusiasm for SpaceX, but some of this behavior is downright odd.  Of course this careful selection of images is intended to deceive.  It is not the de-blurring, or even the selection of unblurred photos.  It is the hand picking of images with similar orientations that give the impression of smooth flight and hide the roll. They don't need to make a statement that the flight was stable when the pictures clearly imply it.  Of course anyone who is interested knows what happened and how these five images don't tell the whole story.  We are sufficiently impressed with the accomplishment of the SpaceX team that hiding the stage separation and slosh/yaw/pitch/roll anomaly was not only unnecessary, but unhelpful.  Many of us would even accept Musk's statement that the system is operational, as his customers seem to be doing, without this disingenuous ad.

Let's just hope we hear from the leadership and engineering side of SpaceX soon, and less from the marketing and spin side.

[Avron]

Comga - 24/4/2007  2:40 AM

Between clongton and stockman, my view is much closer to stockman's.  

We are less than objective in our enthusiasm for SpaceX, but some of this behavior is downright odd.  Of course this careful selection of images is intended to deceive.  It is not the de-blurring, or even the selection of unblurred photos.  It is the hand picking of images with similar orientations that give the impression of smooth flight and hide the roll. They don't need to make a statement that the flight was stable when the pictures clearly imply it.  Of course anyone who is interested knows what happened and how these five images don't tell the whole story.  We are sufficiently impressed with the accomplishment of the SpaceX team that hiding the stage separation and slosh/yaw/pitch/roll anomaly was not only unnecessary, but unhelpful.  Many of us would even accept Musk's statement that the system is operational, as his customers seem to be doing, without this disingenuous ad.

Let's just hope we hear from the leadership and engineering side of SpaceX soon, and less from the marketing and spin side.

Welcome to marketing...   now lets think as to why he would put out an an ad to say anything else other than success...

Well its now 2 weeks and three days... more please... Now that Chris is back.. we may get some inputs??

[Comga]

Avron - 25/4/2007  8:48 AM
Welcome to marketing...   now lets think as to why he would put out an an ad to say anything else other than success...?

That's not my point which was why would anyone at SpaceX think that this "ad" would positively influence anyone?  Everyone who cares knows how well they did and what went wrong.

FWIW, Jonathan McDowell, at  http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/jsr.html
described the Falcon launch as this:

Falcon 1
--------

The Falcon flight reached an orbit of around -4200 x 289 km x 9 deg.
SpaceX reported that the test payload instrument ring was successfully
deployed; the payload and the second stage fell in the Pacific.

Now that's a technically precise statement with just a touch of enthusiasm.  "an orbit of around -4200 x 289 km" I like that, even if he ranks it as the F02, the second failure of the year.  If McDowell classifies it as an orbit, its good enough for me.

[Avron]

Comga - 25/4/2007  10:13 PM

Avron - 25/4/2007  8:48 AM
Welcome to marketing...   now lets think as to why he would put out an an ad to say anything else other than success...?

That's not my point which was why would anyone at SpaceX think that this "ad" would positively influence anyone?  Everyone who cares knows how well they did and what went wrong.

FWIW, Jonathan McDowell, at  http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/jsr.html
described the Falcon launch as this:

Falcon 1
--------

The Falcon flight reached an orbit of around -4200 x 289 km x 9 deg.
SpaceX reported that the test payload instrument ring was successfully
deployed; the payload and the second stage fell in the Pacific.

Now that's a technically precise statement with just a touch of enthusiasm.  "an orbit of around -4200 x 289 km" I like that, even if he ranks it as the F02, the second failure of the year.  If McDowell classifies it as an orbit, its good enough for me.

Now thats great spin.. just drop that little dash thing and we are off to the races..

I see the advertisement as a small indication of things to come.. its machine getting started..  the SpaceX website has been very clear.. but I still would like to see the proof (i.e. video ) with my own eyes.

[guidanceisgo]

-4200 km x 289 km, 9 deg inclination is most certainly an orbit.... a transfer orbit that intersects the earth.  Actually, it was a ballistic missile test disguising Elon's aims to build a new ICBM, which has now been declared "Operational".  Another shot at global domination!  Seriously now, I have to agree that the magazine could only be intended for a industry outsider.

[aero313]

I've just recently come from the Responsive Space conference in L.A.  Anyone who has ever actually launched anything was ridiculing the SpaceX ad.  The popular nickname for Gwynne was "Queen of Spin".  This is NOT their intended audience.  The sad truth is that Congressional Staffers eat this stuff up and are frankly too, er, uninformed to know any better.  From that standpoint, this was probably a very effective ad campaign.

Your government and tax dollars at work...

[Comga]

That seems to answer my question.  Congressional staffers.  And many of us know Ms Shotwell is probably responsible.
 
Just in case there are still doubting Thomases out here, the ad is running again in this week's Av Week.  

The ad sits only a few pages away from an article which posits that launch insurance costs will stymie commercial space, both manned and unmanned.  this sounds like a bigger problem than even yaw-pitch instabilities.

[Jeff Bingham]

aero313 - 27/4/2007  3:20 PM

I've just recently come from the Responsive Space conference in L.A.  Anyone who has ever actually launched anything was ridiculing the SpaceX ad.  The popular nickname for Gwynne was "Queen of Spin".  This is NOT their intended audience.  The sad truth is that Congressional Staffers eat this stuff up and are frankly too, er, uninformed to know any better.  From that standpoint, this was probably a very effective ad campaign.

Your government and tax dollars at work...

You had better hope that congressional staffers are better informed than you seem to believe...they're the ones, for example, who do the writing and detailed negotiating on things like the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which is the law that governs NASA, and they're the ones that write and negotiate the details of things like NASA's annual appropriations. So if you think they're misinformed, I'd suggest you contact them directly and enlighten them, rather than slip into an easy stereotype characterization; you just might be surprised.

[Chris Bergin]

aero313 - 27/4/2007  2:20 PM

I've just recently come from the Responsive Space conference in L.A.  Anyone who has ever actually launched anything was ridiculing the SpaceX ad.  The popular nickname for Gwynne was "Queen of Spin".  This is NOT their intended audience.  The sad truth is that Congressional Staffers eat this stuff up and are frankly too, er, uninformed to know any better.  From that standpoint, this was probably a very effective ad campaign.

Your government and tax dollars at work...

Interesting you should say that, because it's already been stated that Gwynne's been misrepresented on the Falcon I launch by a small handful of people, with the rubbish about 'spinning' the success of the flight, when - and I was on the media call - Gwynne clearly answered the question of what would be deemed a success BEFORE the launch. They surpassed that required parameter.

There's no two ways about it and there was certainly no spin. If anything, it was played down. So whoever is using that 'popular' nickname is basing it on some assumption that's been pulled out of their arses with no basis in fact as per pre-empted requirements clearly noted by SpaceX before the event.

God knows where the attack on Congressional staffers came from.

[aero313]

Chris Bergin - 28/4/2007  5:52 AM

Interesting you should say that, because it's already been stated that Gwynne's been misrepresented on the Falcon I launch by a small handful of people, with the rubbish about 'spinning' the success of the flight, when - and I was on the media call - Gwynne clearly answered the question of what would be deemed a success BEFORE the launch. They surpassed that required parameter.

I'm just the messenger here.  Suffice to say that it's their potential customer base that's saying this.

God knows where the attack on Congressional staffers came from.

Personal first-hand experience.  This is completely unrelated to SpaceX.  Let's just say that the more I see how our gov't really operates, the more disillusioned I get.