Think about all the bad publicity that Boeing got when Starliner was off course.
But here SpaceX is constantly blowing things up and everyone is just like "Ah shucks, they will get it next time though."
A lot of that has to do with how out in the open they have made a lot of these failures and tests. Everybody expects it now and views it in a positive light.
This test was exactly as planned. The one failure they did have unintentionally blow up (the dragon fueling explosion) was actually not on a live stream.
All that did kinda work for their attempts at landing the first stage a few years back though, however that was heavily wrapped in “experiment” and Was PR covered at every moment.
Not all accidents have been on an official live stream but I’ve seen more accidents from Spacex than I’ve seen launches from Boeing and friends.
It is true that they do testing differently from Boeing. Boeing uses a NASA testing plan where hardware is verified on the ground through extensive part or subsystem-level testing. This method has a downside which is that many things end up needing a higher factor of safety than absolutely necessary due to uncertainty in the risk calculations.
SpaceX uses a different testing strategy where a lot more stuff is tested as a complete system. There is increased potential for full system failures, which we have seen, but the entire system can be vetted more quickly.
I'm sure they are tested as integrated systems, but they are also exercised extensively ahead of that. The Super Dracos used for the launch escape system have been test-fired since well before the Crew Dragon got its name.
Though I think it was recorded by at least one unofficial one covering the hot fire.
SpaceX is basically Kerbal Space Program in real life
For me personally I can only wonder how much further along SpaceX might be if all the money we’ve given to Boeing had instead gone to SpaceX.
Whether we really need that much military capacity... well, I'll leave that up to you. But it's not really hidden that we're throwing more money at them than the market would call for. This corporate welfare scheme is very glorified.
The Spacex presenters generally have a mix of knowlege and charisma that news presenters don't.
And here's Boeing's "Inside the Starliner Pad Abort Test" -- https://youtu.be/L9ifJzokFgA?t=98 -- Copyright @ 2019 Boeing, All rights reserved.
So sure, you can see whatever you like: SpaceX is worse than NASA, or SpaceX is better than almost every other company. Your call.
Except that it isn't. All that classic NASA space footage was shared because it was copyright-free. As products of the US federal government they were not subject to copyright protection. They were transmitted and used everywhere. When "The Six Million Dollar Man" or "Buck Rogers" wanted to use NASA launch footage (or USAF crash footage) they just did. No questions asked.
SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is private and therefore protected copyright. It cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for permission. Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers. You wont see the failure footage from SpaceX ever used as nasa footage was used by countless scifi productions.
So no, this is no amazing thing. While modern footage is a visual feast, in terms of freedom it is a step down from what we once had. I think those running TV news networks (or youtube, or any other distribution network) would rather return to the old system whereby they could use footage however they liked. We won't ever see SpaceX crash footage used for much of anything.
What I am talking about. Six Million Dollar Man opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGO57y4td-c
Original NASA footage: (Crash at about 2:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dDWT48b9M
So much pessimism. I think it's great a private for profit corporation is doing as much as it is given it has no obligation to do so.
That's the big change, the lack of obligation. If SpaceX is going to be fulfilling government contracts, on government facilities/ranges, using countless government employees, resulting footage should be free.
It hasn't happened yet, but with human spaceflight nearing we may see SpaceX drafting license deals in a manner NASA never contemplated.
NASA's copyright policy is the exception, not the rule.
NASA's copyright policy is US government wide, it's just that most of the rest of the government actively dodges it by hiring photographers and letting them own the copyrights.
Id be critical of any privatization of something that was once public domain, specifically spacelaunch footage.
SpaceX footage was never public domain. It’s completely different camera systems, etc. There is no regression here in rights because they are completely different things.
It sounds like your problem is with the government not putting speculations in the launch contracts to demand footage be released to public domain. That’s the real issue and that’s where it should be fixed.
I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to private property.
If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an unreasonable burden.
Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?
The footage isn’t what’s being paid for by the government. The only thing that’s being stipulated is that the satellite makes it into its required orbit. Everything else is ancillary to that. This includes footage, software modifications required, internal communications during launch, the parts purchased for the launch vehicle, and on and on. You’re just arbitrarily requiring one of those things should now be public without a justification.
The use of the software is just a tool used to produce said output, so no, I would not automatically suggest the the code should be made available. If the govt funding paid for that software, then yes, it should be made available. There's a difference between funding the development of software vs buying a license to use software.
Yes. Public money, public code. https://publiccode.eu/
I agree 100% that when the government creates a contract for new software to be written, the government (the public) owns that code and it should be open source.
But if the government uses existing products and services, such as macOS, I think it is wrong to say that the public now owns macOS and that apple must open source their code.
Similarly, is NASA contracts spaceX to design and test a new rocket, then that new rocket arguably belongs to the public and should be open source. But it is wrong to claim that the public now owns everything SpaceX might produce, such as video content, just because SpaceX took on a government agency as a customer.
However if the government didn't ask for it and hasn't paid for it specifically, if the company chooses to do it anyway then they own it and it's up to them. Otherwise where do you draw the line as to what video and photography created internally by government contractors in their usual course of business should have to be publicly released?
Where is ULA's reusable rocket stage? Where is Arianespace's Starship competitor? Why is NASA building a disposable rocket?
I don't think the opinion of "those running TV news networks" really matters all that much when we're talking about space.
SpaceX literally uploaded a video of all their crashes spliced together in a comedic montage. It's called How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster.
Even crash footage is good PR for them. There are still millions of Americans who do not know what SpaceX is or what it does.
[1] But not public domain. It's still copyrighted.
We will if SpaceX allows it. How can you be sure they won't?
This is probably true, but it's hard to be certain that they'd prevail. Has this actually been tested in court?
Putting the legal aspects to one side, do you not think it's amazing? If not, what would it take to impress you?
Or maybe there are several people with very specific interests about what logos appear in the stock footage used in hypothetical documentary style near future science fiction movies ...
Except technology achieved many other things besides shooting rockets into space, one of which is really good CGI, so it's really not about the ability to tell a good visual story.
The quality of the coverage has set a new bar for space companies / agencies. That alone is amazing because we all get to benefit.
This really is not a good assumption. The federal government has plenty of ways around this. The federal government can buy copyrights, and also enter into work for hire arrangements with contractors and employees. When naked and operating without contracts, the federal government does have this default status, simple boilerplate copy and pasted contracts change this.
Except that it is. Free as in beer, not as in freedom.
Against that possibility and chance, I honestly don't give a damn about whether or not some of the footage is public domain. I'd rather argue about who has the right to do what with various bits of launch footage from our Martian colony. Beats the heck out of having more public domain launch footage to use in sci-fi movies, and having our crowning achievement in human space exploration being a handful of short missions to the Moon that left behind absolutely no useful infrastructure, and was only done to show up our geopolitical rivals.
Unless it's critical or satirical of the military, like Starship Troopers.