SpaceX needs the trust of its potential commercial customers to make sure they actually can compete in getting payload launch deals. This is what they cater to, you could say it's their reason to exist. To generate this trust, transparency is mandatory. NASA on the other hand doesn't need to worry about such considerations (other considerations yes, but not these).

"Contrast this with NASA's Ares/Constellation program wherein test failures are hidden and design flaws are suppressed".

Give ONE example of this. Any pretense of objective journalism on your part is completely gone.

Editor's note: NASA did not announce the failed Orion PTV test on 31 July. The media had to pry it out of them. NASA did not reveal problems with Orion's weight and Ares launch performance, Ares thrust oscillations, etc. UNTIL the news media uncovered these problems. Only then did NASA admit to these things.

While a rapid failure cause determination is a good thing, this is the kind of failure that should have been easily avoided by understanding engine chharacteristics and accurate simulation of flight conditions. The SpaceX team had better be considering what other unmodelled surprises may be in store.

"SpaceX puts everything on line - live"

Well, except they cut the "live" video from the rocket prior to staging where the problem occurred. I heard that they were going to release the video late yesterday, but I haven't seen it show up yet.

Where's the video?

I agree with Keith. We taxpayers are paying the bills at NASA. I challenge the other people commenting to find a specifications at the NASA website for the Orion capsule. I was looking for it yesterday and finally got frustrated and went to the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. I was looking to see what the weight was so I could see if the Atlas or Delta IV heavy would be able to launch it and was surprised to see that they were, or at least very close.

All NASA has on its websites is Disney style fluff. And try and find some historical information, say about the X38. Very little there. I think NASA now stands for the National Aerospace Secrets Agency.

While I can understand Keith (and others) desire to need to know every little thing happening, is it really that important to know (or force NASA to disclose) a certain test failure immediately after it happened? After all, testing is part of the engineering design process. If something failed, the engineers will determine how to go about fixing the problem, or determine what happened. What would have happened back in the Gemini/Apollo days with such media scrutiny? I'm sure they had test failures back then, and I'm just as certain they weren't publicly disclosed either.

The engineers and scientists will tackle the problem. No amount of media scrutiny is going to change or alter how they do their analysis. Is any amount of media scrutiny going to change this? Of course not. If anything, it'll just prove more fuel for people who say we shouldn't waste our money on space, or those with predetermined hopes of an ARES/Constellation failure. I'm sure the DIRECT people are going to be foaming at the mouth to try and use this to their advantage as well. Now, just as this SpaceX failure was a launch that carries some high visibility , the first flight for NASA's is going to carry just as much scrutiny.
I'm not saying this should be a secret process in terms of information, I just don't find the urgent need for every failure to be made public. Where do we stop then? Does a technician who had a bad rivet installation get Nasawatch coverage complaining about why they weren't informed?

Isn't NASA already orbiting in space?! For quite a while now. I think it is funny that it takes these smart People so long to do something that was done over 50 years ago. This should be easy and they fail over and over again. I won't be impressed by this for a long time; especially until they actually make into SPACE and come back through the atmosphere...like, ummm...the shuttle. If NASA fails, ONCE, millions and millions are spent investigating why (by Congress and pushed by the media, and further negativity by this site) instead of letting NASA figure it out and moving forward. By the way, do you ever post positive things about NASA? It seems rare!

"Contrast this with NASA's Ares/Constellation program wherein test failures are hidden and design flaws are suppressed".

By the way - technically there can't be a "design flaw" in any part of Constellation since no system has yet passed Critical Design Review. There are a series of "design cycles" where lessons learned from analyses and tests are folded into modification to the reference configurations leading up to independently reviewed milestones. A "design flaw" would be a case where (for example) you launched something and it failed because the design of your staging system was incorrect.

Actually, William's reference is correct. When I clicked on the link that Editor posted I was viewing the second, not the third Falcon 1 flight.

"I'm sure the DIRECT people are going to be foaming at the mouth to try and use this to their advantage as well. "

Direct has nothing to with Orion. Direct is a replacement for Ares I. Direct would still use Orion. There is nothing that Direct can benefit from this failure

So NASA is identifying problems through subsystem testing, but not keeping the public in the loop through every step of the process. Meanwhile, SpaceX is doing a great job at marketing and PR, but continues to blow payload into the Pacific. Tell me again how that is impressive?

Editor's note: Both NASA and SpaceX make mistakes. NASA is afraid to admit its mistakes. SpaceX is not.

"SpaceX puts everything on line - live - and comes back with a cogent failure analysis within a matter of days - for all the world to see. Contrast this with NASA's Ares/Constellation program wherein test failures are hidden"

Bad analogy, basically just nitpicking. Every NASA launch is televised. We have seen the launch failures shown over and over. Spacex is not as open as you say. There is still missing video from all 3 launches. The video from the 3rd is edited. Also where are the video and pics of the Spacex test stand failures? Your basic point is wrong. You will twist any story to fit your agenda

OK, the video is very impressive, but there's still one thing I don't understand about this flight. Initially the broadcast was cut at 2:20 citing an "anomaly", but the stage separation was set at 2:39. I haven't seen SpaceX explaining this...

Nothing new under the sun. The first stage thrusting after cutoff and ramming the upper stages is why Explorer II never reached orbit

I'm not defending NASA. It deserves much criticism for its lack of openness and candor on Constellation. But, what I saw on the SpaceX webcast was a PR operation from start to finish. There were a pair of SpaceX-paid flacks anchoring the launch coverage. Canned commentary. Canned SpaceX-produced PR videos. They had everything but canned ham.

Immediately after the failure, the webcast was suspended. Try doing any of that on a live NASA launch or landing failure. Ha! Mr. Musk disappeared for quite a while. I'm sure he was busy, but still... Face the public. Don't leave Diane Murphy to read a canned statement from him over the telephone.

They were quick to explain what went wrong? Yeah. After three failures, they have to be very candid. Nobody will launch with them otherwise. I'm guessing the telemetry was pretty clear (stages bumping into each other) to get such a quick answer.

On a larger note, Falcon 1 is a much smaller, less complicated vehicle than Ares I and V. A more apt comparison would be Ares 1-Falcon 9. The latter has not gone much beyond ground-based engine tests. Come to think of it, has Dragon undergone any drop tests like Orion? There's no reason to expect Dragon won't have the same type of setbacks and delays that have plagued every human space vehicle.

On the one hand, you don't have to be anti-NASA to be pro-SpaceX. On the other hand, you don't have to be anti-SpaceX to be pro-NASA. I'm pro-both, and I see the same upper-level management problems with both. I also see great engineers doing terrific work for both.

So on the one hand, SpaceX has spent a couple of hundred million dollars and gotten the Falcon 9 to ground-based engine testing. On the other hand, NASA has spent I don't know how much and gotten the Ares I to... nowhere. Next year's Ares I-X isn't even as advanced as the Falcon 9 on the ground. It's as if SpaceX bought engines from PWR and launched a fake Falcon 9 with a dummy upper stage. Talk about spin...

And on the one hand, SpaceX is spending Elon Musk's money. On the other hand, NASA is spending our money. I think I have a right to see what's being done with it.

SpaceX already relased full video. Sometimes a little "thup" can be more dramatic than any movie "BOOM". :)

This is link to youtube video (I hate, HATE asx) of uncut flight 3:
http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhci-93Xnxw

"Contrast this with NASA's Ares/Constellation program wherein test failures are hidden and design flaws are suppressed".

To be fair, note that Space-X has released NONE of the results of their testing before launch, not parachute test results, not engine oscillation tests.

Comparing launch results to prelaunch results is a little unfair

I think that the poster was highlighting the difference between the ponderous, overly political image that NASA projects (and its not just perception, ask anyone who works there) to the positive, enterprising image that SpaceX conjures, at least in my mind.

I agree with the comment about the false dichotomy of SpaceX vs. NASA. The two companies couldn't be more different unless SpaceX stopped developing rockets and started making widgets.

To those who are criticizing SpaceX for three failed launches, keep in mind that even the most successful launch systems go through growing pains. Atlas failed like a dozen times before the first success. I think SpaceX has been incredibly successful thus far in what it's trying to do.

Dear Mr.William Barton,

Spacex also spends tax money from NASA and Defense Dept