On 2 Apr 2006 14:42:36 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Cardman wrote:
On 2 Apr 2006 09:44:45 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:
SpaceX will quickly develop
a contentious relationship with the media if it continues
to attempt to control information this way.

This is not unusual for any commercial or corporate entity.

Any why not release the explosion video?

Bad advertising.

I thought that the Enron fiasco had brought an end to the
corportate dis-information age. Analysts and potential
custormers want "transparency" now, not "advertising".

I cannot say that SpaceX is hiding anything. We know it failed and we
know that it plopped back into the ocean. You can certainly use your
own imagination to fill in what this lack of video coverage does not
show.

I think this compares somewhat to the censorship done by the news
agencies in such events like when they show a crumpled car, but with
censoring out the human fatalities. So reporting the event without
over highlighting the brutal reality of the world we live in.

And had SpaceX released this video then it is likely to come back and
haunt them in some shape or form. It may cause potential customers to
reconsider. Hell it could even be used as advertising by their rivals.

Since SpaceX is a privately held company, there are no
shareholders who want their stock price artifically inflated
so they can sell to the next sucker that appears. There
are, as a result, only potential customers. Any potential
space launch customer, who will be spending millions to
build a payload, will not be fooled by withheld information.
If anything, the withholding of information will only serve to
ake potential customers suspicious of, and less likely to
be interested in the services of, SpaceX.

Well the thing is that SpaceX's customers do not have to spend
millions to launch their stuff into space.

Consider it like this pending launch of people launching the remains
of their loved ones into space. That does not cost millions for them
to do, where I cannot say that it would be helpful to start to spook
them.

So you are not just dealing with the well information governmental and
corporate services here, but also the uninformed general public who
would listen to any tabloid scare story.

This is why I say that SpaceX taking the edge off this launch failure
could well be the right thing to do, where hopefully with their second
launch they can work on adding public confidence into their launch
service.

The most recent major U.S. (non-shuttle) space launch
failures - of Delta 241 in 1997, of three Titan missions in
1998-99, of the first two Delta III launches in 1998-99, of
Athenas in 1995 and 1999, and of a Taurus in 2001 - all
of these were reported in real time with pertinant
information provided instantly.

True enough, but they have governmental customers and the whole profit
concept is usually not important here.

The three low-altitude
failures that happened at the Cape were all video-broadcast
in brutal detail within moments. Despite these "bad" reports,
Boeing and Lockheed stocks are at record levels today.

Maybe because they do a lot more than just depending on their launch
services.

By cutting the webcast when the Falcon failure occurred,

That may have been automatic, but most likely not.

and by subsequently withholding video of the actual failure
for more than a week now,

They put up some nice launch video, where you can even see the engine
fire and the first stage insulation issue.

SpaceX has controlled information in a way that no other U.S.
space launch provider has done before.

Welcome to the dog eat dog commercial reality.

In my line of business, as a satellite reception equipment supplier,
then I know that some information is withheld when required, like with
minor faults in a product that is resolved during future production or
software upgrades. As sure enough if the public knows of these "bugs"
then they stop buying this otherwise acceptable hardware and the
manufacturer has to terminate production.

While it may be true that SpaceX is a private venture,
it was working for U.S. taxpayer money, on a range paid for
by taxpayers, when it launched its first rocket. The taxpayers
deserve to know what they are getting for their money.

A damaged satellite.

Well this governmental agency will no doubt have full information,
including complete video coverage, where all the answers to what they
paid for will be at hand. You are not their involved customer.

This launch video is the property of SpaceX. And under the "all rights
reserved" concept then they can do, or not do, with it as they please.

You are correct though that they are hiding something. In my view
their Merlin engine is not all it should be, which explains why they
have already scaled it back and will one day replace it with the
Merlin II.

They do consider their current Falcon I launch service operational
though, where this first launch could be seen to be unfortunate.

So at the end of the day then if SpaceX do not wish to release this
hard landing video then they do so under the concept of sound
commercial business. You may have to get used to it.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk