Aside from not making the desired orbit and rendezvous, it seems that there are multiple problems with the thrusters:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01 ... rformance/

Boy, these space guys love using the word anomaly. It's ambiguous enough not to understand and vague enough to say without publishing "someone screwed up."

No problem. SpaceX will get us to Mars.

Well, at least they don’t use a term inflated in the other direction when things go well. “Nominal” is just as vague as “anomaly.” I’m not up on my Latin but it looks like nominal and anomaly may share the same root word.

Indubitably!

All that aside-is the stock buy back a way to artificially support the price? Seems like the MAX issues alone would tank the stock. Looking for an entry point. Seems way over priced as it sits. Sort of like a lotta the twin bos—

Which is pointless. But as long as it’s not tax payer dollars-I don’t care.

Which is pointless. But as long as it’s not tax payer dollars-I don’t care.

Hi Fabien,

the frustration for us paying USA taxes is that Boeing has gotten more than 2X the funding for the starliner that spacex has gotten for dragon, yet spacex has done more testing and with better results. Boeing is not providing value for money.

Jeff, I appreciate your message and the distinction. If anything we are very lucky with the ESA and Arianespace on this side of the pond.

My post was to highlight that even if SpaceX provides a lot of bang for your buck, which is great, and Boeing doesn't (well Boeing is too big to fail, so Military/Space will compensate the Max debacle)...You still need taxpayer money to provide for Cap Canaveral, for all the infrastructure, the tracking of space objects, the fundamental research, etc.

That's not to say SpaceX isn't great. Only that anything space-related is heavily subsidised.

No doubt government funding is still very much the heart of space exploration, but at least we are finally seeing some small movements away from that.

Just look at the shift in paradigm and expectations already. It’s quite a change from the space shuttle, when NASA would celebrate if they could limp into low earth orbit without exploding. Now launching a rocket and recovering it to use again is becoming routine

In a Tesla.

Some people think we have space projects far beyond what the pubic is aware of, including the late Ben Rich, the "Father of Stealth" who succeeded the late Kelly Johnson, Chief Engineer of the Lockheed "Skunk Works."

Ben Rich - "We have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend. If you've seen it on Star Wars or Star Trek, we've been there, done that, or decided it wasn't worth it." "They have about 4500 people working at Shunk Works. What have they been doing the last 18 or 20 years? They're building something."

http://www.gaia.com/article/ben-rich-lo ... n-and-ufos

www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html

"Heavily" I think is a subjective measure. Compared to what we spend most of our money on, space is a mere drop in the bucket.

As to getting value for our money, Jeff, I agree. But when was the last time we got anything close to our money's worth from a federal program? I think the best we can do is hope that the private sector can eventually stand on their own.

My apologies John, you are right, I meant to say space activity in any form is heavily subsidised. I need to get better at this English thing .

No worries Fabien, you sure don’t want to hear my French, it’d make your ears hurt.