Version: 2008

Comments on: SpaceX suffers third rocket launch failure

A privately funded rocket suffers a launch failure, the third in as many attempts for an Internet entrepreneur who is hoping to develop private space delivery and transportation.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (15 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by jef5623 August 3, 2008 9:52 PM PDT
If SpaceX used the tools of 7th age of computing, still it would have faced a third faliure?
Reply to this comment
by terminalblue August 4, 2008 12:07 AM PDT
this article completely neglects to mention that this rocket was also carrying the ashes of Jimmy Doohan, Gordon Cooper and 248 others. Way to disrespect there families final wishes SpaceX.
Reply to this comment
by benjaminstraight August 4, 2008 3:44 AM PDT
The kinks will obviously need to be worked out.
Reply to this comment
by sniperdoc August 4, 2008 6:09 AM PDT
It just shows that big money doesn't always buy competency or buy you the rights to be a space farer. You figure they'd have sorted all this crap out with the 1st and 2nd lost attempt. Now they have muli-million dollar equipment onboard from other organizations...? That's gotta hurt the reputation/pocketbook. I'd be surprised if SpaceX will be able to retain their contracts with NASA and the govmt.
Reply to this comment
by onlyauser August 4, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
FAILURE IS NOT FAILURE if you are still able to peruse the objective. Failure at an attempt is simply a step closer to success.

We would not have light bulbs if everyone viewed failure as a negative.
Reply to this comment
by thetarget August 4, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
I agree. Fully.

People just take everything for granted nowadays.
by grtgrfx August 4, 2008 10:35 AM PDT
Ah, the difference is, most corporate researchers don't allow $$-Millions of someone else's project money to go up in flames to perfect their objectives. Make it work the first time, THEN offer for sale to everyone else...that's the entrepreneurial way. Perusing (or observing) objectives is not the same as pursuing them.
by Len Bullard August 4, 2008 8:50 AM PDT
Looks pretty much like the first 25 years of space flight from 1942. It isn't just a matter of making good technology, it is a matter of managing it. The V2s blew up consistently until they worked out the turbo-pump spin up problems collapsing the fuel-tanks. It was a technique fix, not a design problem. SpaceX possibly needs more flights to learn how to work their designs. Or it could be a design problem. The trouble could be the test regime itself: insufficient static and tunnel testing, insufficient sensors, not enough flights. If you commit too much to schedule too fast, it happens. This is why Von Braun was so conservative with the manned space flight schedules. The Russians cut corners to get there first and it cost crews their lives. Von Braun insisted on more flights and never lost a crew while launching the world's most complex systems to date.

Experience counts.

I'm a little surprised they put valuable payloads on these start-ups. That's overdriving the headlights.
Reply to this comment
by Neotrope August 4, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
Wow. I guess the legacy continues. Frankly, PayPal sucked really bad until eBay took it over, cleaned it up, got rid of the bad vendors and sorted out the right way to do merchant transactions. With the logic behind this company's business model (SpaceX), maybe eBay should get into the space business. How hard is it to build a missle and point it upright? Sheesh. "Disappointing news of the day," in my opinion.
Reply to this comment
by Pete Bardo August 4, 2008 10:42 AM PDT
Hey Neotrope: "How hard is it to build a missile and point it upright? Sheesh" It's rocket science...duh!
Reply to this comment
by Burnsie001 August 5, 2008 7:31 PM PDT
Not much science these days, just lots of engineering and plumbing. Why send a payload on an experimental craft? Perhaps they should spend some time launching payloads that can afford to be lost while they work out the bugs.
by Thomas, David August 4, 2008 12:31 PM PDT
The question is, and I am going to try and find out, "was the payload lost?"

If so, SpaceX screwed the pooch.
Reply to this comment
by sanenazok August 5, 2008 8:16 AM PDT
It's not mentioned because it's obvious...payload's a goner. They may be able to salvage some plastic, that's about it.
by kwilsonjr August 6, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
Space travel on the cheap? Of course it failed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Reply to this comment
by Kippens October 2, 2008 6:59 AM PDT
Well they have just made a deal with NASA concerning space travel to the International Space Station! So they don't have to worry about launch failures anymore! And no bodies ashes with strange wishes will ever be disrespected again! Joy for all. Maybe they will try ship people to the ISS too. Or build a new station to put prisoners on. Just like in.. ALIEN!
Reply to this comment
(15 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Cutting Edge

Keep up-to-date on cutting-edge research and what's new in a wide range of areas from robotics, space ventures and general science to automobile design and solar energy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Cutting Edge topics

advertisement
advertisement