Falcon Sir Lauch-A-Lot?

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:
A very informative failure which showed that nothing is too badly wrong
with the vehicle, yes. But the customer paid for orbit and didn't get
it.


Doesn't that just make it a non-validation flight?

You have been listening to too many NASA PAO announcements.

This is why I said failure to reach orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make
the flight a failure. In this case, Henry has it nailed- the flight failed
to accomplish its goal, which was to deliver a payload to orbit, and *that*
makes it a failure. Had it been a student project, replacing ballast on a
test flight, then failure to get to orbit wouldn't be an issue, because
youse takes your free ride and you takes youse chances. That's not what
happened here.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in
:


"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:
A very informative failure which showed that nothing is too badly
wrong with the vehicle, yes. But the customer paid for orbit and
didn't get it.


Doesn't that just make it a non-validation flight?

You have been listening to too many NASA PAO announcements.

No, I think he's been reading too many ESA press releases. :-)


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Scott Hedrick wrote:


"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:
A very informative failure which showed that nothing is too badly wrong
with the vehicle, yes. But the customer paid for orbit and didn't get
it.


Doesn't that just make it a non-validation flight?

You have been listening to too many NASA PAO announcements.

This is why I said failure to reach orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make
the flight a failure. In this case, Henry has it nailed- the flight failed
to accomplish its goal, which was to deliver a payload to orbit, and
*that* makes it a failure. Had it been a student project, replacing
ballast on a test flight, then failure to get to orbit wouldn't be an
issue, because youse takes your free ride and you takes youse chances.
That's not what happened here.


A failure is a failure is a failure. But, who was the customer and did they
get their moneys worth? That's the real question. They payed for the
Development (Demonstration, whatever you want to call it), they went and
gave the payload mass to somebody within their organization or donated it.
But payload to Orbit isn't what they were really paying for, is it. I
imagine they got more than their moneys worth paying for the Development
Launches. They probably got a lot of input into all aspects of how SpaceX
does business, current and future. They got a lot of modifications that
they probably wanted, both necessary and not. They may have actually cost
SpaceX more money that SpaceX was paid in some ways. Added some unnecessary
things. Added some of the unnecessary delays. All the time the nut that
SpaceX has to turn to stay in business continues to grow. I imagine they
got their moneys worth, whatever that may be.

I imagine SpaceX's development effort was mainly funded by themselves, and
whatever was paid for the development launches is small in comparison to
what the customer got in return. Hopefully all the bugs will be worked out
before the next launch.

In sci.space.history message , Sun, 25 Mar
2007 23:12:49, Henry Spencer posted:

A very informative failure which showed that nothing is too badly wrong
with the vehicle, yes. But the customer paid for orbit and didn't get it.

The customer gambled.

All launch customers gamble to some extent, as do all users of vehicles.
Some pass on the risk by insuring; some do not.

The customer expected to be, and was, provided with continued orbital-
launch attempts for his payload until the payload became unavailable for
further attempts, whether by being up, down, or in little bits.

What the invoice said is another matter, maybe confidential.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
No, I think he's been reading too many ESA press releases. :-)


Speaking of which, the launch of Jules Verne has been delayed:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/25atv1/


Pat

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:
This is why I said failure to reach orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make
the flight a failure. In this case, Henry has it nailed- the flight failed
to accomplish its goal, which was to deliver a payload to orbit, and *that*
makes it a failure. Had it been a student project, replacing ballast on a
test flight, then failure to get to orbit wouldn't be an issue, because
youse takes your free ride and you takes youse chances. That's not what
happened here.


ROTFLMAO. The mission, regardless of whether the payload was paid for
or by who, was to demonstrate the ability of the Falcon I to place a
payload into orbit.

It did not do so. Thus, it was a failure.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:
No, I think he's been reading too many ESA press releases. :-)


Speaking of which, the launch of Jules Verne has been delayed:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/25atv1/


Pat

It's a failure!!!! The customer paid for orbit and hasn't gotten it yet!!!


--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

Reed wrote in
:

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:
No, I think he's been reading too many ESA press releases. :-)


Speaking of which, the launch of Jules Verne has been delayed:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/25atv1/

It's a failure!!!! The customer paid for orbit and hasn't gotten it
yet!!!

Don't they have to blow it up first?


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Reed wrote in
:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
No, I think he's been reading too many ESA press releases. :-)

Speaking of which, the launch of Jules Verne has been delayed:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/25atv1/
It's a failure!!!! The customer paid for orbit and hasn't gotten it
yet!!!

Don't they have to blow it up first?



As I understand it, the failure rule is slightly different for orbital
components. Unless, of course, the ATV counts as 1/2 or more of a stage
when it is launched, in which case the blow-up rule applies.

Otherwise, for the ATV to succeed it must deliver the entire planned
manifest, without exception. One missing toothbrush = failure!

--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Don't they have to blow it up first?




I'm still surprised Korbel champagne didn't use that first Ariane V
launch in on of its "it wasn't Korbel" commercials, as they were all
sipping French Champagne as it blew.
Cruel?
Yes.
But they inflicted "Alphaville" on us, and for that they must pay dearly.

Patrick Caution