Space X, Close, but no cigar

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30752515

The company CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the booster hit the platform hard.
"Close, but no cigar," he added.

Well personally I wouldn't want a cigar even after a full success but
hey Elon, if you want one you deserve it.


Alain Fournier

On 11/01/2015 2:47 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30752515

The company CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the booster hit the platform hard.
"Close, but no cigar," he added.

Well personally I wouldn't want a cigar even after a full success but
hey Elon, if you want one you deserve it.


Alain Fournier

At least he didn't embarrass himself by trying to spin it.

Sylvia.

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 6:01:10 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/01/2015 2:47 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30752515

The company CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the booster hit the platform hard.
"Close, but no cigar," he added.

Well personally I wouldn't want a cigar even after a full success but
hey Elon, if you want one you deserve it.


Alain Fournier

At least he didn't embarrass himself by trying to spin it.

Sylvia.

True but also to his credit he did try to manage expectations before the event with his 50% figure. Privately I must presume those within SpaceX must have felt the odds were better than a coin toss or why bother with the attempt?

Which leads to another interesting observation. Actual trials are proceeding ahead of Grasshopper 2, i.e. F9R-Dev 2 which is supposed to be testing at White Sands. Some have remarked at forums elsewhere that SpaceX has made a strategic decision to go ahead with experiments on flight hardware rather that await further testing on a non-flight prototype in the desert SW. Seems logical given the low risk actual testing on flight hardware induces. That is, for those flights where the recovery hardware is not a significant enough penalty to preclude using it.

Dave

In article ,
says...

True but also to his credit he did try to manage expectations
before the event with his 50% figure. Privately I must presume
those within SpaceX must have felt the odds were better than a
coin toss or why bother with the attempt?

Doubtful since they already knew they sized the tank for the waffle grid
hydraulics too small. After the failure, they said that the next flight
already has a 50% larger tank installed.

No, I think this is more like Apollo 10, in that NASA knew there was no
chance Apollo 10's LEM could safely land and take off from the moon.
But both missions were flown to gather data while performing a mission
very close to an actual landing mission.

Which leads to another interesting observation. Actual trials are
proceeding ahead of Grasshopper 2, i.e. F9R-Dev 2 which is supposed
to be testing at White Sands. Some have remarked at forums
elsewhere that SpaceX has made a strategic decision to go ahead
with experiments on flight hardware rather that await further
testing on a non-flight prototype in the desert SW. Seems logical
given the low risk actual testing on flight hardware induces. That
is, for those flights where the recovery hardware is not a
significant enough penalty to preclude using it.

If they have the performance margin to spare, why not test in actual
flight conditions?

Actual flight testing is always a good thing because the data you
collect is typically better than a mocked-up test where the conditions
might not be exactly like an actual flight. The new tests may be
different, but early Grasshopper style tests really only tested the
landing phase. They did not test the boost back burn and the reentry
burn.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

But a single test that doesn't result in a 100% success and an
instantly deployable capability means abject failure to the instant
gratification crowd, Jeff. That's why you see Bobbert start squalling
about doom every time someone burps.

True. We also saw the press write stores about this with headlines that
included "failure" in them despite the fact that this was a test that
Elon had previously said he gave a 50% chance of success (he admitted he
made that number up, but it was surely based on what he was told by the
engineers).

Unfortunately, the empirical evidence suggests that the press caters to
the Bobberts of this world.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence suggests that the press caters to
the Bobberts of this world.

Jeff
--

Back in the day I gave AvWeek a lot of credit for never reporting speculation on airline accidents. Instead they waited and published reports abstracted from the actual NTSB transcripts.

Took months, but not misleading...

Dave