> When their entire business depends on very carefully managing their PR
You really think this? My perception is that their PR is fairly blunt and upfront. while they may not tell you everything they dont seem to be trying to "spin" anything
You really think this? My perception is that their PR is fairly blunt and upfront. while they may not tell you everything they dont seem to be trying to "spin" anything
Compare their statements about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion to NASA's.
> Compare their statements about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion to NASA's.
Did NASA's and SpaceX's statements differ in content?
NASA accident investigation report: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_...
TBF the NASA report came much later than the SpaceX explanation. However it might be of interest to compare:
SpaceX explanation of why looking at the right telemetry is hard vs "Technical Finding 4" from NASA.
SpaceX explanation of the strut's "certifications" and max load vs "Technical Finding 1" (and the longer explanation earlier in the document, you can do a control-f for "Where the IRT differs with SpaceX is in regards to the initiating cause")
Hmm.. Isn't this a common cost-cutting strategy for Musk's companies? The touchscreen in the Model 3s was (is?) also industrial grade, if I recall correctly.
Isn't that exactly what it should be? Or would you expect aerospace grade material there? Or is there yet another grade in between called 'automotive'?
I'm not sure if this was deliberate spin, but it seemed pretty shady to me at the time.
WaPro: http://archive.is/j8zjc