SpaceX

I mean, the Challenger was a special kind of fuck up, and seven lives were lost because some numb-nuts got tired of postponing. Does it justify SpaceX's failures? Probably not. But you might want to put a bit more thought on DUDE IT'S HARD LMAO before you send people to their deaths.

it's not a matter of sending people to their deaths. it's that there were millions of other things that would have killed them had they neglected.

Sometimes it's also hard to watch millions of dollars go up in flames. It would certainly rattle my bones if I were funding this.

it turns out the invisible hand™ of the free market™ can't fix it

what would you do? cancel it and basically squander decades of effort and also the lost lives? there are prices to pay for going outside our comfort zone. one of those things happen to be a few billion dollars.

Well, I don't think I'd be funding it in the first place. Or maybe give them a three strike kind of thing. Let them fail until it's no longer worth the spending, if I was to be generous.

>the telemetries that have to be read by ground operators in order to gauge the torque on the frame to assess how it should be moved. all these factors being fed back to a pilot
lolwut?

That isn't how rockets work. There's no pilot. They don't "gauge the torque on the frame". The ground operators don't do shit after lift-off.

Remember, they made this shit work in 1942, and the only ground control then was a radio signal to shut it off when it reached a certain speed and altitude (they later removed that control).

99% of rocket guidance is just keeping it in a straight line according to gyroscope readings. The other 1% is deviating slightly from a straight line to get to the intended orbit and choosing when to shut down and relight the engines. All 100% is done by computers with no ground control except for a big shiny red candy-like button that blows the rocket up if it goes off course.

>they still REFUSED to modify the shuttle with an early escape system

Was that even possible on a non-capsule system?

>Was that even possible on a non-capsule system?

Yes, but it would require redesigning the orbiter more or less from the ground up. They wouldn't give NASA the money.

Really wonder what caused it. Someone said possible grease or dirt in a pipe near the LOX tank, but thats the only suggestion i've heard.

>Really wonder what caused it. Someone said possible grease or dirt in a pipe near the LOX tank, but thats the only suggestion i've heard.

Every initial idea people have in high profile aerospace accidents tends to be wrong; it's the nature of the beast. One of the better looking hypothesis at the moment is ongoing troubles with the composite overwrapped pressure vessels that hold high density helium. Composite vessels don't much enjoy extended stays in deep cryogenic environments, and SpaceX was performing a study on how well their vehicle fairs with an extended hold.

except they have 2 other launch pads, with a third one getting ready soon, and how long does it take to rebuild this pad.. a few months?

Especially if it was just a ground side fuck up that blew up the rocket. I expect them to start launching again before the end of the year.

They had two ejection seats each on the first two shuttles built, and they were usable on the first four flights, after which they started carrying more than a pilot and copilot, and since there weren't enough ejection seats for everyone, they deactivated them as a matter of pilot ethics (didn't want to be in a position of bailing out with passengers in the craft who couldn't).

Ejection seats would probably have saved (ejecting is never a certain proposition) a Challenger crew limited to pilot and copilot. In fact, parachutes and a bail-out hatch might have saved some or all of the Challenger Crew, like in the SpaceShipTwo crash.

It would have done nothing for Columbia.

The idea that the shuttle would be safe enough without a launch escape system was never reasonable. It was a fantasy like thinking the shuttle would save money somehow. People talked about the ultimate potential of a system like that, then they just started pretending that they could achieve it with the first vehicle of its class ever built, after just a couple of flights.

>they have 2 other launch pads, with a third one getting ready soon
The only one I'm aware of that's currently in condition to be used is the one in Vandenberg (California) that's only for polar launches. There's a limited market for those. None of the geostationary comsats or Dragons can launch from there.

The Texas launch facility is only in the early stages of construction. They decided to settle an issue with earth too soft for a launchpad foundation by piling dirt on it and waiting for it to compact over a couple of years. (there are faster ways, but they're more expensive, and they had no reason to rush)

The one that got blown up is Launch Complex 40. They also have Launch Complex 39, which has never been used and was being worked on to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launches. They hope to have it ready for flights by November, but you know how this shit goes.

Attrubuted to SpaceX Founder Elon Musk

They are supposed to do 4 launches from Vandenberg by the end of the year.

If they can get a few launches from LC 39 before the end of the year, this won't have been such a set back.

They are grounded until the investigation is complete and a way to prevent a repeat incident is found. They are very likely finished launching for the year.

If they discover its a ground fuckup in the next 48 hours, they'll still be grounded?

Why do people believe they will be launching before the end of this year? It's already September..

Why wouldn't they be? They'd still have to fix their procedures and equipment to remove the risk.

It's because the bulk of the cost of providing launch services is quality control and since SpaceX intend to radically lower launch costs it's in this area where they have to cut corners with the expected results.

To be fair, Space operations isn't a free market at all. It's hugely distorted by government money. And without that it probably wouldn't exist.

Gotta love how normies think spacex is shit and tesla is shit because they explode and crash.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the falcon is still in development, also you only seeing the explosions because of the media attention.

The tesla crashes are just beyond mind blowing, the car says you have to pay attention while in auto pilot and be ready to take the wheel. Also most of the crashes were caused by other drivers doing dumb shit. Also compared to annual crash fatalities, these few crashes are insignificant.

tldr: people are dumb, the media is retarded

who would have thought rocket science is hard

Fun fact:

The Challenger astronauts didn't die when the Shuttle exploded. The emergency air packs were activated and 2 minutes 45 seconds worth of oxygen was consumed.

They died when they hit the ocean.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Cause_and_time_of_death

Nice read, didn't know that. God rest their souls.

more fun facts

>The song was composed by Jean-Michel Jarre to be played on a saxophone by Ron McNair, aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger. It would be the first song played and recorded in space.

youtube.com/watch?v=jtGG1WLP1pk

>success rate
Irrelevant. Proton also has a success rate near 90% but it's still a shit rocket because it always fails every now and then. Consecutive successes is what matters most. SpaceX is indeed shit in that regard. They would never be allowed to launch the JWST even if their perpetually-delayed falcon heavy was already in service. They're just not reliable.

>he thinks secondary mission landing of 1st stage blowing up counts as a mission failure

lol kid

There's a possibility that the problem isn't related to the F9 at all (e.g. equipment malfunction), in which case the FAA can't keep them grounded.

Yep, musk's companies are all negative media magnets. They're trying to do things different and/or change things, and there's little that people relish more than seeing such things fail. The entertainment value is off the charts and the media takes full advantage of it.

I don't envy the PR guys working at Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity, etc. It must get nightmarish at times.

you've really been playing too much KSP haven't you

Though you've got to admit that the SolarCity deal is fucking stupid. It's hemorrhaging faster than a sliced open torso, it'll just end up diverting funds from Tesla and SpaceX in order to save it, thus decreasing the abilities of Tesla and SpaceX to innovate.

I don't see why people think this explosion was a loss. The Facebook satellite was destroyed as a result, I'd say that's pretty fucking great.

That's definitely a possibility, but if they can manage to turn it around and integrate it into Tesla's business, they'll be an unstoppable juggernaut. It's super risky but if it works to the payoff is huge.

Kek. The media is full of "Elon Musk Is Literrally God At This Point And Here's Why", especially the shitty clickbait-prone outlets that everyone reads, and yet, above all things, you morons complain that people have a bad impression of him. He's the most overrated person in the US, he's mediocre at innovating, he's mediocre at running a business, and he survives on government subsidies. His investment in PayPal at the right time was the only intelligent thing he ever did. No wonder that higher quality publications are more critical of him.

>tldr: people are dumb, the media is retarded
You conclusion, however, is correct.

>Consecutive successes is what matters most.
No it isn't. Consecutive successes are a matter of chance. You can have a 10% chance of failure on each launch, and still rack up 30 launches in a row without a failure, if you get lucky.

Probability of success is what matters most, and that's not simply a matter of statistics, it's a matter of understanding why failures happened and whether they're likely to be repeated, or whether different failures are likely to occur for similar reasons.

SpaceX is still suffering "infant mortality" failures. Their launch operations are not mature. Launches will be risky with them for a while, but should improve rapidly over time.

With Arianespace, ULA, and Roscosmos all transitioning to new vehicles, they should also start to suffer "infant mortality" again, as SpaceX's Falcon rockets reach maturity.

>some people died horribly
>"fun" fact

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Cause_and_time_of_death
Huh. You learn something every day.

RUDs are part of the business, mate

>The media is full of "Elon Musk Is Literrally God At This Point And Here's Why", especially the shitty clickbait-prone outlets that everyone reads, and yet, above all things, you morons complain that people have a bad impression of him.
Yeah, this is called "polarization of opinions". Irrational worship on one hand, and irrational denigration on the other.

Your own opinions aren't reasonable or based in fact, you're just one more moron who decided to pick a side and take it to an extreme.

>he's mediocre at running a business
>His investment in PayPal at the right time was the only intelligent thing he ever did.
Elon Musk started from a middle-class background, took degrees in physics and economics, got accepted to a physics PhD program but left it to go into business, became a mlilionaire in his late 20s, a hundred-millionaire in his early 30s, and a billionaire by 40, now a 10-billionaire at 45 and one of the richest and most influential men in the world, all by working in unforgiving, competitive industries where most businesses fail.

you know, its people like you for there why are everything is wrong the with the world today...

spacex is a small indie rocket company

they dont have a large rocket team
they dont have much money
they dont have much time
they dont have much experience

but they have a lot of heart

its not fair to hold them to the same standards as AAA rocket companies like russia or china

they've won countless innovation awards and were ranked most hyped indie rocket company of the year so give them a break

having procedurally generated rocket plans is the most innovative idea of all time. the one they chose is over 18 quintillion other potential plans, so obvously its a good one.

every once and a while the rockets can explode, but thats the nature of indie rocket companies.

give them a break you owe them so much they are so brave

Found the Elon Musk dickriders. Lol
SpaceX are failling this is a fact. Hes managing all this business as a geek-fanboys fairytale. Sounds like a scam.

Shills always tries to defend the big fails. Nerds are stanning the Musk sins just like the chineses defended the imperator Mao.

Shame in you.

R.I.P. Megalomaniacs
R.I.P. government illusions
R.I.P. Geek masturbations

Yes, exactly. SpaceX simply hasn't launched enough F9s to have all the bugs worked out yet, a side effect of rocket launches being a low volume, expensive business. They're pushing hard to ramp up speed so the inevitable failures will be out of the way sooner, but there's only so much a small scrappy company can do. It's a wonder that they're getting along as well as they are.

>a small scrappy company
SpaceX is bigger than ULA. 5,000 vs. 3,400 employees. In terms of effect on the launch market, they're something of a monster gobbling up contracts.

This would have been SpaceX's 29th launch since the Falcon 9 debut in 2010, and they've got 40 launches on their manifest. ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV have only done about 100, starting in 2002, and in the 6 years after that, there were only 21 launches of these vehicles. Arianespace has only done about 200, all the way back to the 70s. Ariane 5 only flew 10 times in its first 6 years.

So far in 2016, Ariane 5 has flown 4 times, Atlas V has flown 4 times, Delta IV has flown 3 times, Proton has flown 3 times, and Falcon 9 has flown 8 times. Only Soyuz, the most prolific rocket series of all time, is ahead of Falcon 9 in launch rate this year, with 9 launches so far in 2016, and that's from four facilities and two entirely different operators.

With booster reusability and system maturity, maybe by 2018 or 2019, SpaceX should start being able to launch roughly once a week (since they only have to produce one upper stage, with one engine, for most launches rather than a complete rocket with 10 engines), have the biggest launch vehicle on the market, sell launches for half the prices of the next-cheapest competitor, and be responsible for the majority of orbital launches in the world.

SpaceX is a big, fast-moving company that has the rest of the launch industry pissing in their boots.

>launch roughly once a week
I think I would die from excitement if this actually comes to fruition. THAT is the kind launch rate that shows real progress being made and is the minimum I'd expect from a space-capable civilization.

Comparing the number of launches is misleading when is comes to Arianespace, because they launch mostly two satellites per launch. Just look at your 2016 example: True, the Falcon 9 flew 8 times this year already. But only 5 of those were commercial launches free for all to bid on. The other 3 were American only. Falcon 9 carried a cumulative 27.213 kg into orbit, 21.267 of it to GTO. Ariane 5 carried a cumulative 32.860 kg into orbit in half as many launches and all of it to GTO. Arianespace is still market leader with a 50% share of the commercial market. In fact, their launch manifest is so packed that they had to refrain from bidding on some, because they're fully booked.
Proton is the big loser in this story, although they have brought it unto themselves with launch failures. If SpaceX dont get their shit together they'll follow Proton.

>7% percent failure rate compared to 5%
That's 1.4x more failures.
Or in other words, 40% over the acceptable failure rate.
That's a huge difference.

>they launch mostly two satellites per launch
...and in December, a Falcon 9 carried 11 satellites. So what? Ask customers whether they want their payload stacked with a stranger's. Falcon 9 FT can throw 8 tons to GTO, Ariane 5 can throw 10 tons. Ariane 5 isn't nearly twice as much rocket.

>only 5 of those were commercial launches free for all to bid on
Totally irrelevant.

>Arianespace is still market leader with a 50% share of the commercial market.
Only because SpaceX isn't up to production speed. SpaceX and Arianespace are both booked up to foreseeable capacity. SpaceX was beating them for just about every launch contract until their backlog disappeared over the horizon, and some customers are still choosing to line up for a SpaceX launch.

>If SpaceX dont get their shit together they'll follow Proton.
Oh please. They've had one launch failure, one ground-handling incident, and one engine out incident which gave the primary customer the option of nixing a secondary payload insertion (which was exercised).

The Proton incidents are quality-control problems of a *very* mature rocket. The Falcon 9 incidents are infant mortality. Realistically, Falcon 9 1.0 was a development rocket. 1.1 was the first production model, and it didn't start flying until 2013, and the FT model (which has different tanking procedures, as the first rocket to ever use subcooled propellants) didn't start flying until last December.

>...and in December, a Falcon 9 carried 11 satellites. So what?
I was talking two fully grown com sats. This has been their bread and butter for decades.

>Falcon 9 FT can throw 8 tons to GTO
lol no

>Totally irrelevant.
Completely relevant. Market distortions from government money make American, Russian and Chinese launchers look better than they really are and European launchers worse than they are.

>around 20 launches
>infant mortality
Lol, the excuses some people make, amazing.

>they should also start to suffer "infant mortality" again
You hope they'll have infant mortality problems. The thing is that ESA and ULA both know what they're doing and have actually capable people working for them.

>deviating slightly from a straight line

There's no difference in capability. The difference in attitude. ULA and the ESA can take their sweet time and spend as much as they want, tiptoeing around and being absurdly careful. That gets you reliability but it's absolutely horrible for industry accessibility since launching with them will always cost an arm and a leg. It makes entire classes of missions impractical.

SpaceX is all about moving quickly and being affordable as possible. Reliability is of course a goal, but they will have failed if they're JUST reliable. There's no value there, since the market already provides that. On top of being reliable, they've got to be progressively cheaper and faster too, and that isn't simple and it isn't achieved overnight.

>93%
Fuck OFF revisionist redditors
>DEMO flight 1
>CRS-1
>CRS-7
>Amos-6
25/29
86% success rate

Failure is a part of success

>that same autist who relentlessly sharpshoots any post that portrays spacex in a bad way

No worse than that autist with a raging hateboner for everything outside of the traditional space industry

China has perfect success records with rockets just as new or newer than Falcon 9

SpaceX has some serious Q/C issues that need to be resolved if they're to survive as a company.

>ULA and the ESA can take their sweet time and spend as much as they want
That is false

SpaceX has virtually unlimited capital to draw from compared to ULA
All of ULA's profits go to the parent companies, and they have to beg and plead just to get any of that money back.

They have a perfect success record and have pulled it off for far less money than SpaceX.

What has "new space" done aside from offer slightly cheaper launches for much higher risk?

>muh landed rockets
Doesn't mean anything until they re-fly one, and at this rate they never will.

I don't think that's one autist. I think that's just everyone else who gets tired of your bullshit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust
Payload to GTO (27°)
Expendable: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb)

>Their launch operations are not mature.
top kek

SpaceX has launched more rockets than NASA did when NASA started flying astronauts

They literally have the lowest success rate of any provider in the industry

You redditors will go to any lengths to excuse any bad spacex behavior. Pathetic.

Spacex barely deserves the right to launch astronauts at this point

And neither are doing anything particularly new or interesting.

The only interesting thing ULA has going is the SLS, and that's becoming as big of a disaster as the shuttle program was. How many years will it be before ULA and the ESA really start opening up space to the little guys? I don't see that happening for a long time. In their hands, governments and megacorps will be the only ones launching anything for decades to come.

One step at a time. They've already brought costs down considerably, and SpaceX has a customer who's agreed to ride on the first reused booster (SES), and that flight is slated shortly after lockdowns have been lifted.

On a more general note, the cynicism Veeky Forums holds towards space in general is hard to understand. I've never seen such a large group supposedly science-loving people that hopes so much for launches to stay expensive, out of reach, and infrequent.

>SpaceX is all about moving quickly and being affordable as possible.
Sure.

>twitter.com/pbdes/status/771863918834806785
>70 missions backlog
>10 billion dollars
That's about $143M per flight. SpaceX just overprices government launches while underpricing their commercial ones, which allows them to remain afloat. They are as shitty as everyone else, don't be naive.

>And neither are doing anything particularly new or interesting.
What does it matter how "interesting" their shit is when it can't even get stuff into space?

Oh, by the way, while the SpaceX pad is burning, ULA will be launching a mission to return an asteroid sample to Earth for the first time.

>ULA
>SLS
Want to know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

>and that's becoming as big of a disaster as the shuttle program was
SLS will fly before falcon heavy at this point, and will probably cost less to, KEK

>They've already brought costs down considerably
Their prices haven't dropped since their first commercial flight. Their success rate has dropped dramatically however.

> I've never seen such a large group supposedly science-loving people that hopes so much for launches to stay expensive, out of reach, and infrequent.
There's no point in denying reality just because it lives up to your sci fi fantasies better.

>this triggers the spacex shills

>There's no point in denying reality just because it lives up to your sci fi fantasies better.
Having a goal for improvement isn't fantasy and thinking that the peak of rocketry has already been reached is just plain arrogant. The whole market is still in its infancy and won't leave that state until launches are boring, everyday occurrences.

If something isn't changing, it's dead, and the fact is spaceflight is dead until major changes take place, and the old guard won't enact those changes because there's no reason or profit in doing so. Something or someone has to force the issue.

>thinking that the peak of rocketry has already been reached is just plain arrogant
When did I ever say that?

If the "future" of rocketry is a 14% failure rate, then it's a very depressing future.
SpaceX needs to step up their reliability before attempting to tackle this meme reusability stuff.

>China has perfect success records with rockets just as new or newer than Falcon 9

Not the best time for this example, considering they had a launch failure less than 24 hours before the SpaceX disaster.

Luckily China doesn't rely on 1 model of rocket

They literally have 9 or 10 iterations and still manage to be more reliable than Spacex

Thanks for that link user, it greatly improved my opinion of Reagan, a man I truly despised for all the evil he has caused. But he still said one good thing that shouldn't be forgotten

>Sometimes, when we reach for the stars, we fall short. But we must pick ourselves up again and press on despite the pain.

I think that's a valuable lesson everybody needs to know today. Discrediting all of SpaceX's efforts because of a few failures isn't the way forward.

>>Falcon 9 FT can throw 8 tons to GTO
>lol no
You're arguing from a position of ignorance. In expendable mode, it can throw 8300 kg to GTO, and that's with a lox/kerosene, gas-generator upper stage. It could put a fully-fuelled Ariane 5 upper stage directly in LEO with some tons left over for payload. The LEO performance of Falcon 9 is superior to Ariane 5, and F9 outperforms all configurations of Atlas V to any trajectory, while falling only slightly short of Proton performance to LEO and outstripping it significantly to higher orbits. If they simply shortened the first stage a bit and added a Centaur to make a 3-stage rocket, it would probably outperform Delta IV Heavy, the current performance champ, to any trajectory.

Falcon 9's specific impulse might be unimpressive, but the FT version has spectacular mass ratios. 1.0 had pretty good mass ratios, and then they nearly doubled its fueled mass without adding any engine weight.

Expendable-mode launches are a special service now, which have to be specially negotiated, but it's still what the rocket's capable of, and so far they've still only been launching newly-built rockets.

>Market distortions from government money make American, Russian and Chinese launchers look better than they really are and European launchers worse than they are.
Arianespace is HEAVILY subsidized by European governments. Its prices have little relationship to its costs. Furthermore, they have started radically reorganizing in response to the competition from SpaceX, since the member states are starting to balk at paying for the discounts necessary to compete on price with SpaceX.

Frankly, Arianespace is in its death throes. They are hemorrhaging money.

Nevr 4get

>SpaceX needs to step up their reliability before attempting to tackle this meme reusability stuff.
As noted before, they've got to tackle both at once, otherwise their offerings aren't very competitive. There'd be no reason to choose them over competitors if reliability is their only selling point, and that's a big problem.

>shuttle failure rate
>2/135

>falcon 9 failure rate
>4/29
For a "flying coffin" the shuttle sure was safe compared to spacex's meme rocket

>In expendable mode, it can throw 8300 kg to GTO
Not that guy you're replying to, but not only are those numbers NOT accurate yet (they reflect an engine change that was supposed to change Q4 this year) but falcon 9 will never fly in expendable mode again.

>SLS will fly before falcon heavy at this point, and will probably cost less

both are so false. Heavy might be delayed a year, still two years before the first possible SLS launch. And SLS is projected to launch once a year max, with a program cost of over two billion annually. On the contrary, it will be the world's most expensive launch system by a large margin. This alarms nobody, since it is designed as a jobs program instead of to fulfill a particular mission. SLS is a rocket to nowhere.

>tfw /kspg/ is ded forever

kek. What a shitposty advertisement; just a blatant 'fuck you, attentionfag' to Elon.

ULA just gained some cool points in my books.

>Heavy might be delayed a year
Remember when it was supposed to fly in 2013?

>still two years before the first possible SLS launch
SLS will launch in mid to late 2018

>On the contrary, it will be the world's most expensive launch system by a large margin
It will be cheaper than every rocket on a kg to orbit excluding FH (which, as I said, will probably never fly)

>SLS is a rocket to nowhere.
Oh, you're just another delusional redditor?
boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

Falcon 9 is the only "rocket to nowhere"
It can't even get into space without exploding.

They should've played oxygen

>SLS will launch in mid to late 2018
for block 1, with cubesats (LOL). First launch of anything approaching the targeted performance is three years later in 2021!

>cheaper than every rocket on a kg to orbit
except nobody needs 100 tons to orbit.

By that metric, the cheapest launch system ever designed was the Sea Dragon. 500 tons to orbit, baby! I wonder why nobody ever built it?

I don't care if FH gets delayed forever, since only the NRO needs that class of heavy payload.

>except nobody needs 100 tons to orbit.
Top kek, moron

SLS's primary purpose is to launch payloads to EML2, something that the FH cannot even do in expendable mode. It will never be used to launch stuff to LEO

>sea dragon
Nice paper rocket, just like Falcon Heavy.

>falcon 9 failure rate
>4/29
Wow, those are some made-up numbers. Falcon 9's failure rate is 1/28.

The engine-out incident with a 1.0 did not cause a mission failure, it activated a contract option which NASA exercised, causing the secondary payload to be deliberately abandoned.

This pad incident was not a launch failure, it was a failure in testing. It wasn't necessary for the satellite to be on top of the rocket for the test, or required by SpaceX, it was at the option of the satellite owner to save money on the launch. They could have conducted the test with no payload, returned the tested rocket to the horizontal position, integrated the payload, and then returned it to upright position.

Doing it this way, having it on top of a new rocket still being tested, was entirely the satellite owner's choice, to save the cost of these additional steps.

>not only are those numbers NOT accurate yet (they reflect an engine change that was supposed to change Q4 this year)
They reflect an engine change that happened Q4 last year. There's no further engine change coming.

>but falcon 9 will never fly in expendable mode again.
Oh bullshit.

the sls is a paper rocket too retard

What the devil is going to happen in EML2 that'll be worth the SLS? It's not like the orion can land on the moon.

Locally it is.

>Falcon 9's failure rate is 1/28.
Haha, no.

The very first flight had a failure that would have killed the payload if it wasn't just a boilerplate.
See 2:38 in this video
youtube.com/watch?v=AAaNx8n9x-U

CRS-1 had an engine failure that directly contributed to the loss of a secondary payload
youtube.com/watch?v=dvTIh96otDw

CRS-7 fucking blew up in mid flight

>This pad incident was not a launch failure, it was a failure in testing.
This is some moronic reddit-tier logic m8
The falcon 9 launch system includes everything, not just the rocket. When the satellite was handed over to spacex, it became their responsibility.
It was a failure.
Deal with it.

>They reflect an engine change that happened Q4 last year.
Wrong.
It reflects an additional thrust increase in the engines that was hinted at in April this year.

>Oh bullshit.
Post some expendable flights they have on their manifest then.

SLS has 60% of its flight hardware finished or under construction

FH has not even started construction yet

>FH has not even started construction yet
Only because they've had to integrate the stream of improvements made to the F9 into the FH so the FH won't be obsolete the day it's completed. F9 is already capable of several flights originally intended for the FH due to upgrades, making it stupid to build FH as originally specced.

FH is also low-priority. The number of customers waiting for it are far fewer than those queued up waiting for F9s.