Comments on: SpaceX flameout hardly heralds failure http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/06/29/spacex-flameout-hardly-heralds-failure/ Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: BKidder http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/06/29/spacex-flameout-hardly-heralds-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-18252 Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:36:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/?p=31672#comment-18252 Robert makes an excellent summary of the challenges facing SpaceX, and why they are well positioned to succeed. It’s good to see journalists reminding us all that rocket science is, well, rocket science.

However, he erroneously claims that the previous two resupply missions also failed. Orbital ATK’s launch failure was on October 28th of 2014, while Russia’s failure was on April 28th of 2015. Between those two failed launches were three other successful resupply launches, one from Russia (Progress M-25M) and two from SpaceX (CRS-5 and CRS-6). On top of that, Expedition 43 launched in March of 2015, bringing both crew and supplies to the ISS.

Ironically, in arguing that Sunday’s explosion was newsworthy out of proportion when compared to the successes, he’s ignored a number of successes that weren’t as notable exactly because they succeeded.

]]>