Falcon 1 Fire Caused by "Procedural Error"

SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell said in a March 31 NPR interview
that the Falcon 1 launch failure was caused by a "procedural error"
that is understood and can be easily corrected. SpaceX won't
release details until the Govt. customer gives the O.K..

"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5315156"

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell

Make that VP Gwen Shotwell.

said in a March 31 NPR interview
that the Falcon 1 launch failure was caused by a "procedural error"
that is understood and can be easily corrected. SpaceX won't
release details until the Govt. customer gives the O.K..

"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5315156"

- Ed Kyle

On 1 Apr 2006 21:22:03 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Ed Kyle wrote:
SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell

Make that VP Gwen Shotwell.

Make it Gwynne Shotwell.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Apr 2006 21:22:03 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Ed Kyle wrote:
SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell

Make that VP Gwen Shotwell.

Make it Gwynne Shotwell.

Gwynne it is.

I understand her assertion that the ongoing investigation
prevents releasing failure cause details, but I don't
believe for a second that the Government is preventing
SpaceX from releasing images and/or video of the actual
crash and post-impact fire. SpaceX will quickly develop
a contentious relationship with the media if it continues
to attempt to control information this way.

Any why not release the explosion video? The national
media paid not a whit of attention to the launch attempt.
They would have if SpaceX had released what is probably
a spectacular failure video. Bad press is good publicity
in this era.

- Ed Kyle

On 2 Apr 2006 09:44:45 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Bad press is good publicity in this era.

There's nothing unique about this era in that regard.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Apr 2006 21:22:03 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Ed Kyle wrote:
SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell

Make that VP Gwen Shotwell.

Make it Gwynne Shotwell.

Gwynne it is.

I understand her assertion that the ongoing investigation
prevents releasing failure cause details, but I don't
believe for a second that the Government is preventing
SpaceX from releasing images and/or video of the actual
crash and post-impact fire. SpaceX will quickly develop
a contentious relationship with the media if it continues
to attempt to control information this way.

Any why not release the explosion video? The national
media paid not a whit of attention to the launch attempt.
They would have if SpaceX had released what is probably
a spectacular failure video. Bad press is good publicity
in this era.



Welcome to the business world. The only thing a large
company really cares about is what it's investors think.
And the only thing an investor really cares about is
what potential investors think.

If the company I'd invested in started advertizing their
problems, I'd sell. In the real business world it's custom
to accentuate the positive, while meeting the legally
required minimum on disclosing the negatives.

It's the American way~ Are you unpatriotic?










- Ed Kyle

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 13:03:12 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Any why not release the explosion video? The national
media paid not a whit of attention to the launch attempt.
They would have if SpaceX had released what is probably
a spectacular failure video. Bad press is good publicity
in this era.



Welcome to the business world. The only thing a large
company really cares about is what it's investors think.
And the only thing an investor really cares about is
what potential investors think.

In this case, the only (or at least primary) investor is Elon himself.

On 2 Apr 2006 09:44:45 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Apr 2006 21:22:03 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Ed Kyle wrote:
SpaceX official Ewon Shotwell

Make that VP Gwen Shotwell.

Make it Gwynne Shotwell.

Gwynne it is.

Gwynne Shotwell - Vice President of Business Development.

Seems like an unusual SpaceX employee to start quoting internal short
term investigation finding to the public, but I guess that she has
been doing public relations.

I understand her assertion that the ongoing investigation
prevents releasing failure cause details, but I don't
believe for a second that the Government is preventing
SpaceX from releasing images and/or video of the actual
crash and post-impact fire.

No. SpaceX will certainly censor those themselves. It is one thing to
highlight the truth in that it failed, but it is another to show to
their future customers what SpaceX can do to their precious cargo.

This matter however is about SpaceX and this governmental agency
releasing one or more reports that agree with each other.

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.

Kind of like that engine test when they did well to burn down the test
stand.

The national
media paid not a whit of attention to the launch attempt.

I think I read a small column on it.

And I guess in this case I would think that the media would be wrong
to not cover this better, when it is not like that a commercial
company making orbit is not as important, or even more important, to
SpaceShipOne winning the X-Prize.

They would have if SpaceX had released what is probably
a spectacular failure video. Bad press is good publicity
in this era.

It also matters not if the general public have a blow by blow account
of the successes and failures of SpaceX or not, when I am sure that
when SpaceX make orbit then someone will inform the media as to the
nature of this historic event. What does matter is that SpaceX keeps
up a good image to their customer base, where in the end those
customers will be more happy not seeing the worst case situation of
what can happen to their own cargo.

Your desire to see this landing video I expect is all self-centered.

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

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

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

I just sent an uncomfortably large check to the IRS to help
fund their "customer" (DARPA via the Dept. of Defense).
As far as I am concerned, I *am* their customer and they
have no right whatsoever to misinform me about how they
spent my money. If my money was used to create a
smoking hole in the ground, I want to see the ground, the
hole, and the smoke. If they insist on hiding the truth from
me, then I will insist that my Congressperson ask to stop
sending them my money.

- Ed Kyle