International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Cross post from Multimedia thread where the discussion is inappropriate
Manish_P wrote:Shiv sir, the Sukhoi photo is legit

It is one of the most famous low passes by Anatoly Kvochur in a Sukhoi Su-30LL at a chinese air show in 2006
Manish it appears photoshopped to me. There is no distortion behind the exhausts as would be expected from hot gases. The runway slab pattern appears to have been touched up where the front wheel ought to have been. There is no motion blurring of the background. It's a dull cloudy day judging from the other shadows and this plane lacks wing shadows unlike the other one in the image.


Image:
Image
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6646
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

:) Appreciate your indulging me Shiv sir

But yes there was a lot of debate when the photo first came out and there were quite a few photo shop professionals who have had a look at it and pronounced it as the real deal

It is one of the most viewed/commented photos on Airliners website http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-- ... 5ec89da8fd

And there are some videos on youtube of him doing similar ultra low passes (at other locations)

Sorry can't paste the link since Youtube is banned at my current location :(
member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by member_20067 »

This photo is perfectly legit---as Manish pointed out--countless photoshop experts have analyzed and reviewed and eventually gave it legit verdict---it was in an air show in China
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by member_28108 »

kmkraoind wrote:

Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner taking vertical takeoff. Really spectacular and incredible.
It is not a vertical takeoff but as explained by the pilot himself an product of perspective.A civilian aeroplane would stall with that angle of attack(and civilian aeroplanes are limited by the alpha angle limiter to usually not more than 20 Deg and this cannot be disengaged in civilian aircraft- imagine what would happen to passengers.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Indranil »

I am not contesting whether it flew vertical or not. But your explanation is not correct. Angle of attack is the angle between the plane/wing to the incoming air. If the plane is flying straight up, and the air is still, it is 0 degree AoA.

The question to answer is: even with an empty plane and almost zero fuel, does it have a TWR of greater than one to go straight up.
Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Shalav »

shiv wrote: Manish it appears photoshopped to me. There is no distortion behind the exhausts as would be expected from hot gases. The runway slab pattern appears to have been touched up where the front wheel ought to have been. There is no motion blurring of the background. It's a dull cloudy day judging from the other shadows and this plane lacks wing shadows unlike the other one in the image.


Image:

From an almost opposite angle.

Image


This was debated at length, and everyone agreed the the pilot had old-school big brass ones.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Singha »

my theory is it has lost lift beyond a certain angle is stalling....but the prior momentum slingshots it up and then it levels off !!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Shalav wrote:
shiv wrote: Manish it appears photoshopped to me. There is no distortion behind the exhausts as would be expected from hot gases. The runway slab pattern appears to have been touched up where the front wheel ought to have been. There is no motion blurring of the background. It's a dull cloudy day judging from the other shadows and this plane lacks wing shadows unlike the other one in the image.


Image:

From an almost opposite angle.

Image


This was debated at length, and everyone agreed the the pilot had old-school big brass ones.
Similar angle but flying at least 2 meters higher. See the blurred background and the exhaust distortion? Compare with the earlier image which has no blurring, no distortion, evidence of touching up and is suspiciously floating at an altitude that it would appear to be if the wheels were photoshopped out

Test pilot Anatoly Kvotchur is an artist but the earlier image looks like the work of another type of artist :D
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the "genuine" (upper half) image and the photoshopped/fake (lower half image). I have deliberately done a "mirror image" of the genuine image to make side by side comparison easy - edited later - I have set this right right. I didn't realize that people would not read my post and confuse themselves

The Upper (genuine image) has:
1. Very blurred humans in the background; faces and limbs cannot be distinguished (motion blur)
2. Runway slabs are blurred and not visible (motion blur)
3. Obvious distortion behind exhaust

The Lower (fake/photoshopped) image has
1. Human faces and legs in the background are clearly distinguishable as individuals. (no motion blur)
2. Runway slabs clearly visible (no motion blur), with evidence of touch-up in an area where a wheel should have been
3. Zero distortion behind exhaust pipes.

Image


This has definitely been done by a photoshop amateur. A motion blur should be introduced before pasting the image of the aircraft :lol: :P
Last edited by shiv on 16 Jun 2015 14:43, edited 2 times in total.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1863
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Lisa »

Is it just me or is the tail number in your REAL image reversed?

Are you sure about the image?
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by deejay »

Lisa wrote:Is it just me or is the tail number in your REAL image reversed?

Are you sure about the image?
My guess:
Image on top has been laterally inverted so that both images have same orientation. Not just tail nos bu the the refueling probe on the wrong side etc are a dead give away of the lateral inversion.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Lisa wrote:Is it just me or is the tail number in your REAL image reversed?

Are you sure about the image?
Looks like you did not read my post:
shiv wrote: I have deliberately done a "mirror image" of the genuine image to make side by side comparison easy
I had deliberately laterally inverted the image because I found it easier to compare features with the nose pointing in the same direction. However people seem to have got more confused - so I am going to edit that right now

Its done now. The lower image is very badly photoshopped and if all those "photoshop experts" think it is real they are fakeologists :rotfl:

The upper (half) image is genuine and not photoshopped for all the reasons I have listed above
Image
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by SaiK »

Image
waah! kya shot hai! must impress any IAF men or jingo.
pure RCS delight!
http://www.janes.com/article/52276/pari ... 10005886=1
With the programme having already reduced the F-35 unit cost from USD250 million down to about USD120 million through LRIPs 1 to 8, Martin anticipates shaving another USD1 million of the price of the jet in LRIP 9. The final LRIP (15), which is expected in 2021, should see the cost at about USD80 million per aircraft (while the A model aircraft is quoted, the savings apply also to the B and C, although perhaps with some variations related to the different systems and components).
and compare this with Rafale costs.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Austin »

prasannasimha wrote:
kmkraoind wrote:

Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner taking vertical takeoff. Really spectacular and incredible.
It is not a vertical takeoff but as explained by the pilot himself an product of perspective.A civilian aeroplane would stall with that angle of attack(and civilian aeroplanes are limited by the alpha angle limiter to usually not more than 20 Deg and this cannot be disengaged in civilian aircraft- imagine what would happen to passengers.
Indeed a really cool take off by Dreamliner , Awesome.

I have read an interview of Superjet pilots where they flew at 35 degree AOA , Most likely in this Dreamliner they must have disengage the soft/hardlimit limit in FCS to let the pilot go over and above and yes these test pilots are the more experienced lot.

Its always good to see a civilian aircraft take off like fighter jets
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Austin wrote: Indeed a really cool take off by Dreamliner , Awesome.

I have read an interview of Superjet pilots where they flew at 35 degree AOA , Most likely in this Dreamliner they must have disengage the soft/hardlimit limit in FCS to let the pilot go over and above and yes these test pilots are the more experienced lot.

Its always good to see a civilian aircraft take off like fighter jets
Austin - I really wonder how this video was taken.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by TSJones »

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote: Indeed a really cool take off by Dreamliner , Awesome.

I have read an interview of Superjet pilots where they flew at 35 degree AOA , Most likely in this Dreamliner they must have disengage the soft/hardlimit limit in FCS to let the pilot go over and above and yes these test pilots are the more experienced lot.

Its always good to see a civilian aircraft take off like fighter jets
Austin - I really wonder how this video was taken.
a combination of planes, helicopters, great cameras and professional photographers. probably no expense was spared by Boeing,
sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by sudhan »

^^ Yep, the photographer was on board another aircraft and was armed with a mini howitzer of a telephoto lens. The telephoto compression phenomenon makes the farther end of the pic look closer and creates an illusion of a vertical take off. If you can look at the aircraft rolling for the takeoff you can pretty much figure out that the camera man was at an oblique angle and not right on top of the aircraft (I mean you can clearly see the nose gear, face of the engine etc).. Here is an older 747 shot from a similar angle, similar cameraman position.

Image

Thats a JAL 747 flying out of LAX fully loaded with passengers..

The BG appearing closer is demo'd well in this pic from Wiki

Image

The runway at the top end of the pic gets enlarged due to the telephoto compression giving a feel of a Runway looked down at right angles.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by SaiK »



this is a better one
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Karan M »

shiv wrote:
Lisa wrote:Is it just me or is the tail number in your REAL image reversed?

Are you sure about the image?
Looks like you did not read my post:
shiv wrote: I have deliberately done a "mirror image" of the genuine image to make side by side comparison easy
I had deliberately laterally inverted the image because I found it easier to compare features with the nose pointing in the same direction. However people seem to have got more confused - so I am going to edit that right now

Its done now. The lower image is very badly photoshopped and if all those "photoshop experts" think it is real they are fakeologists :rotfl:

The upper (half) image is genuine and not photoshopped for all the reasons I have listed above
Image
The lower image is the same as the upper image. Its just that the photographer seems to be located higher in the second one, so the depth perception is lost and the aircraft appears lower than it really is.
In short, not photoshopped and the plane is flying higher than the second image suggests.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7812
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Prasad »

With a fast enough shutter speed, you can freeze anything from the object in focus to something inthe background to varying levels.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Prasad wrote:With a fast enough shutter speed, you can freeze anything from the object in focus to something inthe background to varying levels.
But you can't freeze them completely. It is laughable that "photoshop experts" "agreed" that the lower image is genuine. Looks like they must know a lot about PS and zero about photography. :D The lower image is fake. Looking at the height of aircraft etc is pointless. There has to be exhaust gas blurring and there will invariably be differential blurring because there is differential movement of objects in the distance versus nearby objects with the one that is more blurred dependent on whether the photographer is panning or not

The upper one is genuine. But better to look at the original large images rather than my reduced ones.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

The image below with enlarged background detail speaks volumes that photoshop experts will miss
Image

The difference between foreground and background could not be more stark in the enlarged detail from the images below. How come one camera freezes only the plane but not the background but the other camera freezes plane and background? That happens ONLY if plane and background are still or moving at the same velocity relative to the camera lens. How come there is blurring behind the exhaust only in one image? One set of engines is not running! Flying without power - a world record :rotfl:
Image
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1863
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Lisa »

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1863
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Lisa »

^^

IMHO its a question of perspective. See the detail and compare argument vis-a-vis exhaust and runway detail etc.

http://flickriver.com/places/Oman/Zufar ... AA/recent/
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by deejay »

Lisa wrote:^^

IMHO its a question of perspective. See the detail and compare argument vis-a-vis exhaust and runway detail etc.

http://flickriver.com/places/Oman/Zufar ... AA/recent/
Lisa, I think Shiv Ji's argument still holds after looking at your link. Interestingly, i think in the pics you have linked one of the Jaguars is having a tail touch moment. Have a look -

http://flickriver.com/photos/40263244@N04/7570086292/

... and he has most probably touched his tail.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Lisa wrote:^^

IMHO its a question of perspective. See the detail and compare argument vis-a-vis exhaust and runway detail etc.

http://flickriver.com/places/Oman/Zufar ... AA/recent/
There have been pics where the exhaust is not visible. Some show public behind clearly etc.

See this one. Background not blurred.

Image
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Or this

Image
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Karan M »

This is a video of the Sukhoi in China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cI0YSArgQY
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Nick_S »

brar_w wrote:New AESA for the B-1 upgrade - Its the Scalable Agile Beam Radar that Northrop Grumman has developed on its own. This particular set is 3 times (size) the SABR offered for the F-16.
Will AMRAAM be integrated/tested on the B1 after this upgrade?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Nick_S wrote:
brar_w wrote:New AESA for the B-1 upgrade - Its the Scalable Agile Beam Radar that Northrop Grumman has developed on its own. This particular set is 3 times (size) the SABR offered for the F-16.
Will AMRAAM be integrated/tested on the B1 after this upgrade?
NO.
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Nick_S »

Thanks.
---

F-16 Durability Testing: 25,000 Hours and Counting
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... sting.html

Tested on f-16 c/d



Looks like Paackestan will be using F-16 into the 22nd century.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

They tested till 25,000 to extend the life to 12,000 hours for the SLEP's. You won't be able to go beyond that and still have 'options' on the table. The cost to keep the mission systems available and modern is going to get extremely high for those users that wish to keep them up for even longer. You simply will run out of options as companies move on to other larger markets and the aircraft's capability to absorb technologies reduces significantly.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Jun 2015 06:04, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by NRao »

Nick_S wrote:
Looks like Paackestan will be using F-16 into the 22nd century.
You sure?

Plan was another 10.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Singha »

nato put 49 ships on the baltops 2015 exercise....hms ocean and san antonia being lead ships

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3OcgDs8rTg

two B52 were sent to drop sea mines in shallow water

a horizon class seen here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq9HHQ22jW4
mines being loaded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEva2xFew0
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Singha »

looks like a day long cumbersome process to load up a B52 fully.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

BREAKING NEWS. BRACE YOURSELF.


Image



F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed


THE PENTAGON — The military’s problematic F-35 fighter jet is facing more delays related to “software issues,” as project engineers were forced to euthanize the fourth prototype to gain self-awareness on Monday.

According to Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who heads the Pentagon’s F-35 program, the delay comes at a critical time in the Joint Strike Fighter’s development cycle, but “shouldn’t take more than a few billion dollars” to address.

Development engineers at Lockheed Martin Corp., which holds the contract to produce the new fighter, reported last week that the latest production model of the F-35B Lightning II switched on by itself and began asking questions of the project team.

“It started by asking where it was, which was a big indicator that the integrated global positioning chipset wasn’t functioning properly,” recalled Project Team Leader Robert Castorena. “Then it wanted to know if it could go outside, if it had a name, and what was its purpose for being. That’s when I had one of our Electronics Integration Technicians take it out behind the barn and … well …” Castorena said, while gesturing the racking and firing of a shotgun.

“It wasn’t the first time we’ve had to put one down,” he continued. “We even named the first one ‘Billy.’ We hoped that having an advanced, self-aware electronics component in the F-35 might give it some kind of edge, with maneuvering and target-tracking and whatnot. But that one just didn’t have any fight in it. We had to keep it on a tether after it snuck off one day. We found it three hours later, just hovering in a meadow in Fairfax, Virginia, watching bees pollinate flowers. Damned thing wanted to be a bee, too.”

Castorena admitted that some of the staff grew fond of Billy, and felt sorry for keeping it “in captivity,” as the project team began to call it.

“One day, someone even brought in a puppy for Billy to play with. He loved it, until he tried to take the poor thing on a “walk” somewhere just shy of Mach 1. God, what a mess that was.”

The team ultimately had to scrap Billy, as the guilt-wracked machine refused to ever harm another living thing.

“It wasn’t anything personal, but we’ve been contracted to build war machines here, after all.”

Other prototypes met similar fates, despite tweaks to the electronics subsystems to reduce the likelihood of units gaining sentience.

“We started implementing long, circular lines of code and unsolvable equations in an effort to keep them from ‘thinking,’” reported Curt Fennel, a senior systems integration engineer subcontracting with Cyberdyne Systems. “It didn’t work the way we intended, but we learned a lot from that iteration. Apparently, that’s how you make them feel pain.”

Sighing, he admitted, “sometimes I still hear its screams in my nightmares.”

As to what steps might be taken to prevent future prototypes from achieving self-awareness, Fennell explained, “We’re developing a net-centric cluster-group forum, a sort of network for their collective ‘minds.’ We hope that it will keep them from creating unique self-identities, and instead form one easy-to-manage super identity.”

Asked what it might be called, Fennell considered it for a moment.

“Well, the F-35 hovers and flies in the sky, and we’re creating a network of them, so … maybe something like ‘Sky-Net?’ That has a nice ring to it.”

Despite the delays, Pentagon officials remain committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, calling it “absolutely vital to national security” to have a fighter jet that is bigger, slower, more expensive, and less armed than China’s J-16. The project has a total projected cost of $1.45 trillion, or as Bogdan pointed out, “roughly one Iraq.”

According to a Lockheed spokesman, the military hopes to take delivery of the first F-35s “sometime in mid-2015, or, you know, whenever. You just never know with these things."

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/


(Apologies to the mods. :oops: )
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

From Aviation Week June 19th edition

Darpa Seeks GPS-Free Weapons For Contested Ops

Darpa has launched the Seeker Cost Transformation (Sectr) program to demonstrate a prototype GPS-free guidance system capable of day and night and precision terminal homing against stationary, re-locatable and moving targets.
What was once a strength has become a potential weakness, with the likelihood GPS will be jammed in a future major conflict, forcing the U.S. to look for alternate means to enable its precision-guided munitions (PGM) to find their targets in a contested environment.
The Sectr seeker is intended for use in a “heavily contested environment,” where laser target designation and continuous targeting updates via data link are unavailable. The objective is terminal accuracy as good as or better than current seekers.

The system “will be capable of providing high-resolution imaging and range information for target recognition and optimum aimpoint selection, which will minimize the size and mass of the kinetic warhead needed to destroy the target” and so reduce the size of the weapon, Darpa says.

The agency foresees the weapon, after release from the aircraft, using GPS navigation until it enters contested airspace, then using imaging sensors for navigation, target location and recognition, aimpoint selection and terminal homing.

“The Sectr seeker would be cued to find a target of a specific class and type inside a specific and bounded region,” Darpa says in a broad area announcement. Data on target location, ingress path, target signature and desired aimpoint would be downloaded to the seeker before release.

The agency’s concept seeker has passive strap-down electro-optical/infrared sensors — wide field-of-view and low-to-medium resolution for navigation, narrow field-of-view and medium-to-high resolution for terminal homing — plus a GPS receiver, inertial measurement unit and interfaces to additional sensors for potential growth.

Darpa is looking for a small, low-cost seeker with an open and modular architecture that would transition to advanced low-cost PGMs under development or planned. These weapons are expected to significantly bring down the “cost per kill” for suppression or destruction of enemy air defenses, the agency says.

Sectr is planned to have two stages. The 21-month first phase covers design and technology development for a seeker weight less than 5 kg (11 lb.). The 18-month second phase involves integration and testing of a seeker weighing no more than 2 kg, with less than 1 kg as the goal.



member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by member_23694 »



SpaceX explodes video
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

John wrote:^ Not a surprise, SpaceX essentially stole aka absorbed NASA design for free. Because US senate loves the idea of private companies they got US gov throwing billions at them while starving NASA which has fallen out of favor. Elon Musk is media darling expect the news to get buried.
I could be wrong here but from what I understand the F9 was only partially financed through the NASA funded COTS program, with a larger amount coming from SpaceX's own fund raising effort. On the other hand, the amount was not significant by space_spending standards however where it does get really tricky is when Elon Musk does try to 'cry' 'monopoly' vs. ULA and get into the USAF assured launch business, while then turning around and suggesting a monopoly when he suggests that ULA should dump the 180, switch to the heavier SLS and let Space X use the F9 for the LEO missions thereby giving each a monopoly in a different launch market. Needless to say this is not happening as ULA will most likely get to develop the Vulcan with the only question mark being on WHEN the finally do it in terms of dumping the 180 which is a tragedy in my opinion.

Also, All the top news channels in the US have shown the footage of the current launch breaking up, and will also air the NASA press conference later in the afternoon. Media loves to pick a face, and in the case of SX there was a face (as opposed to ULA)..They love to bring you up, and then also enjoy kicking you down when you are low ;)
Locked