NYT was the only major publication to put the negative spin on otherwise solid test flight (that is, unless you count Slapdork as a major news outlet). We have to credit Engadget staff for discerning the truth between the lines.
We should keep in mind, that the main SpaceX's rocket is Falcon 9 (F9). That is the one which won a half of the COTS contract from NASA. The Falcon 1 is a test vehicle for F9. It's far smaller and cheaper, so it saves a ton of money to work out problems on it. F9 uses same structures, engines, and avionics.
The other half of the COTS contract was won by Kistler with their K-1. The K-1 is ambitious design and it would advance the state of the art quite a bit if it succeeds. However, Kistler has no precursor vehicle like Falcon 1. If anything goes bad with K-1 and it crashes, it's going to be the end of the program. I am frankly amazed that they are so confident that it's not going to happen. Test airframes crash all the time (e.g. remember Sino-Swearingen SE-30 crash? Two pilots dead. And it's not like the first ever commercial jet airplane.) Not to mention that this launch of Falcon 1 was the second test flight, not the first.
Seen in this light, SpaceX is in much better shape than its nearest competitor.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
NYT was the only major publication to put the negative spin on otherwise solid test flight (that is, unless you count Slapdork as a major news outlet). We have to credit Engadget staff for discerning the truth between the lines.
We should keep in mind, that the main SpaceX's rocket is Falcon 9 (F9). That is the one which won a half of the COTS contract from NASA. The Falcon 1 is a test vehicle for F9. It's far smaller and cheaper, so it saves a ton of money to work out problems on it. F9 uses same structures, engines, and avionics.
The other half of the COTS contract was won by Kistler with their K-1. The K-1 is ambitious design and it would advance the state of the art quite a bit if it succeeds. However, Kistler has no precursor vehicle like Falcon 1. If anything goes bad with K-1 and it crashes, it's going to be the end of the program. I am frankly amazed that they are so confident that it's not going to happen. Test airframes crash all the time (e.g. remember Sino-Swearingen SE-30 crash? Two pilots dead. And it's not like the first ever commercial jet airplane.) Not to mention that this launch of Falcon 1 was the second test flight, not the first.
Seen in this light, SpaceX is in much better shape than its nearest competitor.