falcon

It seemed to happen after they posted the SpaceX article(www.theverge.com/2015/6/29/8863121/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explosioauses) that was poorly thought through.

You could launch most of this stuff with reusable Falcon 9 rockets or equivalents.

For pedantry's sake: Falcon 9 blew itself up once an anomaly was detected.

This failure is a likely setback for man-rating the falcon in the future.

Let's not forget the port of Doom to the Atari Falcon either...

From the initial report, the falcon self destructed due to non-nominal path.

He is a senior engineer and Falcon 9 Product Director.

Something like: we are trying to correlate the timelines of data from Falcon to the timing of the Range Safety Officer...(turning on?)...

There are no solid rocket boosters on Falcon 9.

How hard is to sabotage Falcon 9 mission?

According to the press conference, SpaceX do get over 3000 channels of data from Falcon in flight, but that's still no substitute for examining a structure that's already flown for damage.

[...] these struts have been used on all previous Falcon 9 flights and are certified to withstand well beyond the expected loads during flight [...] Huh.

"mental aptitude" - you'll be fine then with neuroscientists or some such fixing the falcon.

Edit: Falcon Launch Control on "We are trying to correlate timelines and compare data with what they were able to see with down range cameras and put together what happened.

Falcon typically has a trunk-facing camera on top of the second stage, sometimes broadcasted during separation with Dragon.

Falcon Heavy will have boosters, perhaps that's the confusion, unless 'booster' meant 'first stage'.

Falcon 9 Heavy could eventually be added to that list (I think we were already talking about F9H in 2007...).