[ScottGo]

We tried that and FAILED!

[larbud]

Originally Posted by ScottGo

We tried that and FAILED!

They have a new surgery now for you and bogie, a clear plexiglass window is installed in your navel..

[ScottGo]

so much for a discussion on the next rocket launch.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by larbud

They have a new surgery now for you and bogie, a clear plexiglass window is installed in your navel..

Did you hear/read that somewhere or just make it up. It really makes no sense.
Find a new place for your veiled political posts.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by larbud

When did I recommend a President? And why would I know anything about what you try to do?

You said, "Imagine if We had a Businessman for President!". That is a political recommendation and is easy to assume it refers to a previous president. I don't know you, and I can't read your body language. So, I can only take your statement at face value.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Private industry has moved us ahead in launches

SpaceX has moved use ahead in space. Other two are still trying get first one into space.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I will call you on this one. As YOU know I am trying to turn down my political participation here. I don't think I have injected a political statement into ANY non-political thread in ages. I certain do get sucked into political threads occasionally - but not the same as this thread.

Recommending a president is by definition political, posting ON TOPIC about the success rate of a private corporation is non-political.

I wonder how get away with it, some of us don’t.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Did you hear/read that somewhere or just make it up. It really makes no sense.
Find a new place for your veiled political posts.

Comprehension problems????

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You said, "Imagine if We had a Businessman for President!". That is a political recommendation and is easy to assume it refers to a previous president. I don't know you, and I can't read your body language. So, I can only take your statement at face value.

No it statement, just cause you don’t like don’t make it poli——. Majority of you’re posts IMO have polit—- overtones. And yes, I can have opinion.

[thevillages2013]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well apparently he has turned over a new leaf! At least disguising it better under his new user name. Not “Grumpy “ any more if you catch my drift

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by ScottGo

We tried that and FAILED!

And NOW we go political...

[larbud]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Did you hear/read that somewhere or just make it up. It really makes no sense.
Find a new place for your veiled political posts.

I’ve been telling peeps that have their heads up their sewer that for many years..Don’t recall hearing it anywhere. Veiled huh?

[flsteve]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

SpaceX Falcon 9 launches:

Total launches 146 FT: 126 v1.1: 15 v1.0: 5
Success(es) 144 FT: 126 v1.1: 14 v1.0: 4
Failure(s) 1 (v1.1: CRS-7 in-flight)
Partial failure(s) 1 (v1.0: CRS-1)

The last 94 launches in a row were full successes. Most delays were caused by waiting for ULA SLS's to get out of the way.

...and this is important mainly because ULA statistics are:

Total launches 146
Success(es) 146
Failure(s) 0
Partial failure(s) 0

The last 146 launches in a row were full successes. Most delays by waiting for SpaceX to get out of the way (works both ways).

Of course, SpaceX also nearly entirely destroyed launch complex 40 and lost the payload for Israel in a MASSIVE explosion, if you want to call that a failure. Not talked about much, but SpaceX is the fan favorite, so little things like that are frowned upon when mentioned. ULA's record has been stellar for DECADES, which is why mentioning the number of launches as being tied is significant to SpaceX.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by flsteve

...and this is important mainly because ULA statistics are:

Total launches 146
Success(es) 146
Failure(s) 0
Partial failure(s) 0

The last 146 launches in a row were full successes. Most delays by waiting for SpaceX to get out of the way (works both ways).

Of course, SpaceX also nearly entirely destroyed launch complex 40 and lost the payload for Israel in a MASSIVE explosion, if you want to call that a failure. Not talked about much, but SpaceX is the fan favorite, so little things like that are frowned upon when mentioned. ULA's record has been stellar for DECADES, which is why mentioning the number of launches as being tied is significant to SpaceX.

SpaceX is carrying passengers to the space station on a regular basis now, something ULA was SUPPOSED to be doing, but darn, they just can seem to get the system to work... just saying.

[flsteve]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

SpaceX is carrying passengers to the space station on a regular basis now, something ULA was SUPPOSED to be doing, but darn, they just can seem to get the system to work... just saying.

Apples and oranges. ULA has ALWAYS been ready. The Boeing capsule has had concerns that kept them off schedule.

Arguably, some failures were due to SIMULATION failures during the test flight, where real astronauts on board would have made the flight successful. Without that, ULA would have been the first to return US astronauts to space.

Now, however, Boeing is challenged with not only the Atlas V, but also the Orion/SLS launches. ULA launched the first Orion capsule on a Delta IV back in 2014. ... just saying