New Falcon 9 update w/pics

[jimfromnsf]

"No F9 in 2008. Mark my words. The vehicle won't be even delivered to the launch site "<br /><br />I maybe should have said "Mark THOSE words" because they are not mine but from the people most intimately involved

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> I maybe should have said "Mark THOSE words" because they are not mine but from the people most intimately involved </font><br /><br />"The phonograph is not of any commercial value."<br />- Thomas Edison, 1880<br /><br />"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"<br />- Harry Warner, Warner Brothers Pictures, 1927<br /><br />"People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." [commenting on television]<br />- Daryl F. Zanuck, Head of 20th Century Fox, 1946 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

All your quotes are about people commenting on other people's devices. <br />Not applicable here. But I could have said it anyways since the manifest has the first F9 launch in the 4th quarter of 2009, anyone with half a brain can see that it isn't going to happen based on past experience. It only has to slip 3 months and "No F9 in 2008" <br /><br />So Boris, you can spew more meaningless quotes, it isn't going to change (now read carefully) the FACT the F9 isn't launching in 2008<br /><br />edited: meant to say 2008

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> All your quotes are about people commenting on other people's devices. </font><br /><br />Thomas Edison was commenting on someone else's invention?<br /><br />Harry Warner of Warner Brothers was commenting on movies, & you think he was in what business?<br /><br />Daryl F. Zanuck, Head of 20th Century Fox didn't know anything about mass media?<br /><br />If you think you are in the same league as Albert Einstein & Thomas Edison (who are both quoted here) then by all means keep "spewing" predictions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

What was that you said? Can't hear over the banging of pots and pans.<br /><br />It was not a "prediction" It is a fact<br /><br />Like I said, it was from someone.......

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> What was that you said? Can't hear over the banging of pots and pans. <br /> </font><br /><br />How childish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">No F9 in 2008. Mark my words. The vehicle won't be even delivered to the launch site</font><br /><br />http://spacex.com/launch_manifest.php<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Falcon 9 Demo Flight 1 - Q4 2008 - Falcon 9 - Cape Canaveral</b><br /><br />NASA COTS – Demo 1 - Q4 2008 - Falcon 9 - Cape Canaveral<br /><br />Canada: MDA Corp. - Q4 2008 - Falcon 9 - Cape Canaveral <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The first is NOT a COTS flight and 1 of 3 F9's scheduled in that quarter. Lots of room to slip to be sure, but if they pull it off.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[solarspot]

Jim, you are switching back and forth between saying F9 will not launch in '08, and saying it will not launch in '09. Would you please make a single statement saying one year or the other?<br /><br />Also, you are giving information about something that has not happened. That qualifies it as a prediction. If you know that they are 'covertly' planning to launch in '09, then you can say that. SpaceX has a poor track record when it comes to meeting schedules, but I doubt you have a time machine sitting around that you have used to see whether or not they will slip their schedule. Statements about events which have not yet occurred are, regardless of likelihood, predictions. I would prefer you say that, at least to reduce miscommunication.<br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

Edit my earlier post to 2008.<br />It is not a prediction. They not launch in 2008

 

[Huntster]

I'm sorry Jim, but it is simply improper to say they won't do this or won't do that until the time frame in which they said something will happen has passed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I'm sorry Jim, but it is simply improper to say they won't do this or won't do that until the time frame in which they said something will happen has passed."</font><br /><br />Appropriate references would help his case. "I said so" is nothing more than opinion...not fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I heard it in a meeting

 

[thereiwas]

Was anyone from SpaceX at the meeting?

 

[hal9891]

Wasn't that only one of those "purple monkey dishwasher" rumors? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div style="text-align:center"><font style="color:#808080" color="#999999"><font size="1">"I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them"</font></font><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Just like the meetings you attend, I get inside info.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"but it is simply improper to say they won't do this or won't do that until the time frame in which they said something will happen has passed."<br /><br />not when events or planning doesn't support the proposed date

 

[rocketscientist327]

Answer the question jimfromnsf:<br /><br />Was anyone from SpaceX at the meeting?<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Was anyone from SpaceX at the meeting"<br /><br />That is inconsequential.

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">"Was anyone from SpaceX at the meeting"<br /><br />That is inconsequential.</font><br /><br />Of course it's consequential.<br /><br />If the answer is 'no' then your information is filtered through someone else's preconceived notions, in other words a rumor. <br /><br />ru·mor (rmr) n.<br /><br />Unverified information received from another; hearsay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.<br /><br />That is complete bullcrap. That is not how the industry works.<br /><br />People, I work with, go to status meetings all the time to bring back information. The info they bring back is not a rumor. If they attend an Atlas meeting and find out that they are going to delay a launch to the 21st. It is not "unverified" and a second source is not required. <br />

 

[docm]

Now that wasn't so hard, was it? <br /><br />First it's how bureaucracies work; yours, mine or any other.<br /><br />You're getting your info in progress meetings, the reliability of which depends on the opinions, agendas and simple accuracy of people at least twice removed from said meeting.<br /><br />I've taken part in such meetings myself, also in a government agency, and their connection to on the scene reality can be quite tenuous. <br /><br />More often than not this isn't agenda driven but just the kind of thing you run into with linear verbal communications that occur over time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

You're getting your info in progress meetings, the reliability of which depends on the opinions, agendas and simple accuracy of people at least twice removed from said meeting."<br /><br />Hard data (schedule dates) are not opinions or agenda.<br /><br />.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It is certainly not, as you state, a fact either!"<br /><br />You must go to some pretty useless meetings then.<br /><br />And how would you know, were you at the meeting?<br /><br />

 

[nimbus]

Take it easy jim <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<And how would you know, were you at the meeting?><br /><br />When and where did this 'meeting' take place?<br /><br />Who provided 'documents' from SpaceX?<br /><br />Exactly what launch date did that SpaceX document have for the first Falcon 9?<br /><br />You have loudly proclaimed that publicly available information is nothing but valueless PR, and that we should trust your 'insider' claims instead. But recently the public information on the Orion CEV engine has proven correct and your 'insider' claim incorrect. With your track record why should we believe your anti-SpaceX axe grinding over publicly available information?<br /><br />