Discussion of SpaceX Statement on Zuma Mission (Failure?)

[AnxietyRanger]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoney quoting on the phone is inherently imprecise and the partial quote was repeated subsequently. I agree that was sloppy. But it doesn't explain my opinion.

I completely agree with using the full quote as the comparison and personally I did in my opinion-making based on that. It was posted in #11 after all. It also includes a second paragraph and a bit more.

No argument there. I will try to explain my thinking better later.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoney

So here is my promised explanation, one more time, of my opinion of this statement. This is the quote in full, not an abbreviation:

So even TMC is posting misinformation against one of Elon's companies?
Statement From Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX on Zuma Launch

The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.

“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”

My opinion (which is just that and never claimed it to be more) comes down to this: I would have personally found it a bit more palatable - given the short timeframe between the launch and the statement - if the first chapter had been formulated less around "all data", "everything correctly", "categorically false" and a bit more towards the analysis just getting started and reporting status of that. I found this statement veered just a bit too much towards a full-stop denial, even with leaving the door open for further results and a few qualifications, for comfort.

IMO that made the statement a little less believable, which IMO is too bad, because I actually do believe the statement. I reported how reading that post made me feel and why. Also, I pointed out that IMO the latter half of the first paragraph was not very successful either, just my PR pondering which I will not repeat here - but for anyone who cares (which is nobody ), in post #21 I offered my thoughts on how that statement could have been IMO improved and left IMO a better impression of the situation.

I hope this clarifies. Thus I partially agreed with @bro1999 that Elon's companies do seem to have a tendency to jump to denials. Possibly it seems cultural.

Noteworthily other parties in this case have remained silent so far.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yeah, counter to the FUD spreading here, SpaceX has no history of lying in the past and

As for your plural "FUD spreading here", aside from perhaps @bro1999's assertion (which @Doug_G fairly asked him about), I doubt at least anyone or any significant portion here has said they believe SpaceX is lying. Just because we're analytical and not biased towards favor for the company (as some others may be), doesn't mean it is FUD.

What is more interesting, though, is their SpaceX's quick denial symptomatic of the "wasn't me" culture of "Elon's companies", i.e. were they too quick to deny when not even they fully know yet, because it is in their culture to do so? That is plausible. Tesla's latest Alcantara statements certainly were a timely reminder of how this type of PR works quite often.

has never hesitated to delay missions if there are any issues that come up in previous missions or interesting data they can look at. Heck, this zuma mission was delayed multiple times.

Delaying is a mission is not what is being discussed here, though. We're talking about how the PR works. They could do all this PR, say it isn't affecting anything, and still delay a mission later when the storm has blown over. Again, "Elon's companies" do have a history with this, just look at AP2. Lots of PR to deflect from the actual issues, we buy it hook like and sinker, and only later learn of massive delays.

So I hope you can at least see why people are analytical about the PR. And we know how close these companies are. Heck, SpaceX is launching a Roadster to space.

Now, all this said, I personally believe the theory that something went wrong after SpaceX had completed their job. To me that seem plausible and most likely. But biased speculation on or off the board is not proof of that, nor are curt company statements (companies have their own agendas). The truth will take time, just like it did with AP2, only this time I hope I'm not as wrong in believing the company version...

 

[hockeythug]

Complaining about PR on a classified mission. Brilliant.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Complaining about PR on a classified mission. Brilliant.

Yep. Because PR was made, it gets commented. Who knew?

Staying silent was always an option if one does not want the PR to be evaluated.

 

[hockeythug]

Yep. Because PR was made, it gets commented. Who knew?

Staying silent was always an option if one does not want the PR to be evaluated.

Northrop Grumman was illegally leaking classified information through congressional surrogates. SpaceX had to defend themselves because they have zero friends in Washington or the media.

Edit: I'm just gonna go ahead and put you on the block list as this is the only section of the forum I still enjoy and it's normally not filled with your kind.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Northrop Grumman was illegally leaking classified information through congressional surrogates. SpaceX had to defend themselves because they have zero friends in Washington or the media.

Perhaps. And just like you are commenting on Northrop Grumman there, people are commenting on SpaceX. So it goes.

The full truth we don't know. People evaluate and speculate from their own biased positions, and/or with their agendas, whatever they may be. Over time we may learn more and a reasonable concensus form. Probably too early days yet.

Some have more nuanced positions, like me. I actually believe SpaceX likely wasn't at fault here. Still, I have found the PR angle a worthy discussion in itself (the Alcantara gate a timely reminder of the PR debate involving Elon's companies).

Edit: I'm just gonna go ahead and put you on the block list as this is the only section of the forum I still enjoy and it's normally not filled with your kind.

Perfectly understandable. I don't expect everyone to be interested in discussing PR policies or such, which I have interest in.

 

[mongo]

Staying silent was always an option if one does not want the PR to be evaluated.

Ah, but then we would be debating the relevance and meaning of the silence/ lack of a denial/ PR...

HYPOTHETICAL COMMENT FROM THAT APPROACH: "of course they screwed up, it's been 5 days and they haven't said otherwise, plenty of time to review the data. They just don't want to admit it. Falcon heavy is just a distraction, they're going to have 'equipmemt issues' until weather forces then to take it back to the HIF where they will secretly fix the problem"
THAT WAS NOT A REAL OPINION, SITUATION, OR QUOTE .

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Ah, but then we would be debating the relevance and meaning of the silence/ lack of a denial/ PR...

HYPOTHETICAL COMMENT FROM THAT APPROACH: "of course they screwed up, it's been 5 days and they haven't said otherwise, plenty of time to review the data. They just don't want to admit it. Falcon heavy is just a distraction, they're going to have 'equipmemt issues' until weather forces then to take it back to the HIF where they will secretly fix the problem"
THAT WAS NOT A REAL OPINION, SITUATION, OR QUOTE .

Yes, that is perfectly possible. People speculate, just like they speculate or make claims about the satellite manufacturer on this thread, who has chose to remain silent. Yet the blame-game continues.

But IMO no statement can be better than a bad statement, just as a general comment. I think the tit-for-tat in this particular case has outlived its usefulness, so I'll leave the disagreement at that.

 

[mongo]

Yes, that is perfectly possible. People speculate, just like they speculate or make claims about the satellite manufacturer on this thread, who has chose to remain silent. Yet the blame-game continues.

But IMO no statement can be better than a bad statement, just as a general comment. I think the tit-for-tat in this particular case has outlived its usefulness, so I'll leave the disagreement at that.

Okey dokey, I'll just leave this here then,

Making conclusions with insufficient information

 

[stopcrazypp]

As for your plural "FUD spreading here", aside from perhaps @bro1999's assertion (which @Doug_G fairly asked him about), I doubt at least anyone or any significant portion here has said they believe SpaceX is lying. Just because we're analytical and not biased towards favor for the company (as some others may be), doesn't mean it is FUD.

What is more interesting, though, is their SpaceX's quick denial symptomatic of the "wasn't me" culture of "Elon's companies", i.e. were they too quick to deny when not even they fully know yet, because it is in their culture to do so? That is plausible. Tesla's latest Alcantara statements certainly were a timely reminder of how this type of PR works quite often.



Delaying is a mission is not what is being discussed here, though. We're talking about how the PR works. They could do all this PR, say it isn't affecting anything, and still delay a mission later when the storm has blown over. Again, "Elon's companies" do have a history with this, just look at AP2. Lots of PR to deflect from the actual issues, we buy it hook like and sinker, and only later learn of massive delays.

So I hope you can at least see why people are analytical about the PR. And we know how close these companies are. Heck, SpaceX is launching a Roadster to space.

Now, all this said, I personally believe the theory that something went wrong after SpaceX had completed their job. To me that seem plausible and most likely. But biased speculation on or off the board is not proof of that, nor are curt company statements (companies have their own agendas). The truth will take time, just like it did with AP2, only this time I hope I'm not as wrong in believing the company version...

Although you say you believe SpaceX's statement, most of your posts in this thread cast doubt on SpaceX's public statement (intentionally or otherwise), especially by saying that it's a quick denial akin to what Tesla may have done in the past. As @Doug_G puts it, they aren't the same company and they don't have the same history in how they handle PR.

 

[scaesare]

Although you say you believe SpaceX's statement, most of your posts in this thread cast doubt on SpaceX's public statement (intentionally or otherwise), especially by saying that it's a quick denial akin to what Tesla may have done in the past. As @Doug_G puts it, they aren't the same company and they don't have the same history in how they handle PR.

Indeed.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Although you say you believe SpaceX's statement, most of your posts in this thread cast doubt on SpaceX's public statement (intentionally or otherwise), especially by saying that it's a quick denial akin to what Tesla may have done in the past. As @Doug_G puts it, they aren't the same company and they don't have the same history in how they handle PR.

Most of my posts on this thread, as per usual, are my stupidity of getting dragged into debating and explaining - and re-debating and re-explaining - my views to a multitude of posters who challenge them (which is, of course, fair game - but I could be wiser and let it go sooner).

That's the biggest reason for the volume. Those views that get challenged, get most volume. Nobody has challenged me on my opinion that SpaceX is not at fault. Hence it hasn't gotten much volume.

I do believe SpaceX is likely not at fault in this incident. It is my speculation and my hunch. The PR discussion, that's something else. And better let go IMO. Now, onto that New Year's promise...

 

[scaesare]

As for your plural "FUD spreading here", aside from perhaps @bro1999's assertion (which @Doug_G fairly asked him about), I doubt at least anyone or any significant portion here has said they believe SpaceX is lying. Just because we're analytical and not biased towards favor for the company (as some others may be), doesn't mean it is FUD.

Don't pretend, however, that that you cannot slant the tone of (many, MANY) posts such that they, in effect, become FUD. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

You continually claim that you are just asking questions or raising awareness and are only interested in objective discussion of the issues. If that's truly the case, then here's my observation to you:

Your constant questioning of every event, suggestion of ill intent and nit-picking of seemingly every action that Elon and his companies take has an overall very negative tone that amounts to FUD. Particularly given the sheer volume of your posts and the desire to have the last word Every. Single. Time.

Yes, your individual posts themselves are couched in plausibly deniable language, so taken on their own you can claim it's just asking a question or making an observation. But given the overall body of your content here, along with the ratio of questions implying a negative connotation, rather than raising an issue that would cast Elon/Telsa/SpaceX in a positive light, makes you out to be anti-Elon & Co.

Now, I know you are in a country where issues may be dealt with differently than many people on this forum are used to. And I don't know if you are a native English speaker. So I'm posting this so you have at least independent observation of how you are perceived. I'm specifically giving you the benefit of the doubt in this post.

How you react to this and your subsequent behavior will further inform my opinion.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Most of my posts on this thread, as per usual, are my stupidity of getting dragged into debating and explaining - and re-debating and re-explaining - my views to a multitude of posters who challenge them (which is, of course, fair game - but I could be wiser and let it go sooner).

That's the biggest reason for the volume. Those views that get challenged, get most volume. Nobody has challenged me on my opinion that SpaceX is not at fault. Hence it hasn't gotten much volume.

I do believe SpaceX is likely not at fault in this incident. It is my speculation and my hunch. The PR discussion, that's something else. And better let go IMO. Now, onto that New Year's promise...

This is your first post in the previous thread before it got split.
Zuma Satellite Reportedly Destroyed Following Sunday's Launch By SpaceX
This is your second.
Zuma Satellite Reportedly Destroyed Following Sunday's Launch By SpaceX

Both of these are casting doubt on SpaceX's statement (enough though you used humor in the first one). The post at start of this thread where you mention you believe SpaceX's statement came afterwards (even then it was buried in a lot of text that again cast doubt on the truthfulness of SpaceX's statement by suggesting it was a Tesla-like denial).

I didn't make a point about volume of comments overall (perhaps you are confusing me with others that did bring up that point), only that your comments were akin to FUD whether you intended it to be or not.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@stopcrazypp You can choose to believe my opinion or not. However, it is genuine: My speculation and hunch is SpaceX was not at fault. I think the satellite separation theory makes sense. Chalk that up with we're getting an AR HUD.

But I will clarify this: What doubt I have, and what doubt I think SpaceX should have expressed in their PR, was related to how quickly they came out with such an IMO strong denial. I think that lessened their believability, not added to it IMO. There is more fault analysis to be done and we can't be sure what it uncovers.

Mind you this was not enough to make me not believe them, but enough to raise my eyebrows and feel a tinge of familiarity with Tesla's PR and wonder how much Elon (or something else shared between the companies) drives the PR culture.

This is a bit like the Alcantara gate on Tesla's side. Many of us there don't think the cloth change was a problem at all (granted in that case Alcantara clearly is better, but as a product change it would not have been a big deal). The communication and misleading customers was the problem - and when that debate goes on and on, it may way well seem it is all about the cloth, when it really is about a disagreement with the PR style.

I believe SpaceX on this. But despite their PR, not because of it.

 

[mongo]

Here is where we diverge:

There is more fault analysis to be done and we can't be sure what it uncovers.

What factual evidence is this determination based on? Is there any data to support that there is an investigation occurring on SpaceX's side of things?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Here is where we diverge:



What factual evidence is this determination based on? Is there any data to support that there is an investigation occurring on SpaceX's side of things?

Oh come on.

Please.

 

[ggr]

Oh come on.

Please.

There is nothing for SpaceX to investigate. All the telemetry in their possession says that their part of the mission succeeded, and that's what they said. Do you want them to make up stuff so they can investigate it?

 

[scaesare]

Oh come on.

Please.

On the contrary, for someone expressing their disapproval for potentially drawing conclusions without sufficient data or analysis, this categorical assertion seems rather incongruous.