[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ot sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ot sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ot sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.

[Cog]

On a related note the top-secret X37B, the unmanned mini-space plane, went back into orbit in September 2017. No one really knows what it does up there for the Air Force.

[Cog]

Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ow put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ow put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'N')ow put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

[asg70]

SpaceX developments are moving too fast to bother posting in this thread, the Falcon Heavy followed by the PAZ launch with the start of their sat-internet endeavor and experimental fairing capture attempt.

Objectively speaking it's hard to classify SpaceX as anything other than a success, given its constant innovation and risk-taking. I read an article suggesting that, financially speaking, they would not be able to sustain more than one or two catastrophic failures, but it seems as though they are rapidly fine-tuning the entire F9 launch and landing regime in a way that is improving the odds.

The fate of Zuma is a nagging mystery, but if their success ratio holds it seems to bolster SpaceX side of the story that the failure was due to non-SpaceX parts.

Unless things turn for the worst suddenly then it sure seems like Falcon 9 and its descendants will go down as one of the most significant rockets of all time.

[Cog]

SpaceX is doing incredibly well and is set to make billions more.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'S')paceX is doing incredibly well and is set to make billions more.

[asg70]

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/envy.htm

[asg70]

SpaceX not to blame for Zuma failure. Just in time for PStarr to resume his heckling.

[radon1]

The advantage of solid fueled rockets is a much greater safety and cheaper maintenance. The disadvantage is a significant loss in maneuverability and precision as the thrust cannot be managed actively.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'T')he advantage of solid fueled rockets is a much greater safety and cheaper maintenance. The disadvantage is a significant loss in maneuverability and precision as the thrust cannot be managed actively.

[radon1]

Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'L')iquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'L')iquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

[Newfie]

Following.

[dissident]

Musk fanbois are tiresome. His crew capsule was an epic fail that SpaceX tried to spin as something minor for a few months and then gave up. Landing on barges is not the high tech it is painted to be. Rockets aren't fireworks and can be designed with extremely precise control capability. That is why they can be used to shoot down satellites. The real issue is the longevity of the engines and the tanks. Due to weight savings, they have been historically designed as disposable. For example, landing the tanks several times subjects them to enough stress to create problems from fractures. The metal used is very thin. The same goes for the engines which are not over-designed to reduce weight. So far SpaceX has talked a big deal, but we know nothing about the economics of their "reusable" rockets.

SpaceX (and other companies) is a government welfare project to bootstrap private orbital rocket industry. The taxpayer is going to have to shell out billions of dollars in subsidies for many more years. And nepotist Musk (who bought Solar City because it was run by his relatives) will be taking advantage of this welfare giving the taxpayers much less bang for the buck than is possible.