7 ms·

Note that NASA, I believe at Trump's urging, recently said they would try to place humans on the first flight of the Space Launch System (the new heavy lift roc

Note that NASA, I believe at Trump's urging, recently said they would try to place humans on the first flight of the Space Launch System (the new heavy lift rocket) - i.e., no unmanned testing first. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/science/nasa-looks-to-speed-timetable-for-putting-astronauts-in-deep-space.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/science/nasa-looks-to-spe... Is Musk still maintaining a relationship with Trump? When Uber founder Travis Kalanick left Trump's business council, Musk was still on it AFAIK. I wonder if Musk is doing this or announcing it for related reasons. Certainly Trump has a history, even in his short tenure, of pressuring businesses into announcements that suit his agenda. And the announcement seems to fit Trump's pattern: Impossible, brazen bravado. (Musk gives the impossible some credibility, but that's what is meant by lending someone your credibility.) It's speculative, but it's also sad and a bad sign when we must look for government interference in the free market at this level, to provide propaganda for the President.

Maultasche 10y ago
NASA agreed to do a study to see if they could place humans on the test flight. That seems to me like the NASA equivalent of saying "Sure, I'll look into that" while trying to not look horrified. I'm pretty sure that study will conclude that this is a bad idea.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I sure hope so! I wouldn't want to be on that flight. The NASA article brought to mind a story of a well-known Cosmonaut knowingly launching in an unreliable vehicle because the politicians insisted. He died. He flew because he didn't want his understudy to be killed in his place. (I'm sure someone on HN knows the story better than I do ...).
  - rst 10y ago
    That sounds like Soyuz 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1
- godelski 10y ago
  I know for a fact that NASA is still concerned about that Helium tank.
  - Pfhreak 10y ago
    The explosion from that helium tank was slower than the emergency rockets on the dragon, from what I understand. So, had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event.
    - godelski 10y ago
      The thing is that NASA doesn't want to put anyone on something has the chance of doing that. The emergency system is for emergencies. Ideally it should NEVER be used. Vetting for manned missions is a lot different than cargo. That's all I'm getting at here. When rockets have recently exploded NASA gets pretty worried about putting humans on it.
      - gus_massa 10y ago
        For comparison, the Space Shuttle has NO emergency system and approximately a 2% catastrophic failure rate ...
        rbanffy 10y ago
        It had a couple abort options if one or more SMEs failed. Unfortunately, none of the catastrophic failures were predicted. Nature has a way to do things we don't expect it to do.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event. Safety isn't defined by, 'did it work out ok?', but by the risk. In this case, the outcome the parent describes is hypothetical; among other things, it assumes the emergency escape system would have worked perfectly. I assume NASA wants to evaluate the risk of the helium tanks, not the hypothetical outcome. For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable.
XorNot 10y ago
I'm pretty sure Musk is doing what's reliably necessary to keep his companies running under Trump. An administration full of oil wealth and climate change deniers are a significant business risk when you make electric cars and have States banking photovoltaics. He needs to be within Trump's monkeysphere.
- XJOKOLAT 10y ago
  "Trump's monkeysphere" ... I loved that. Thanks for a good chuckle. Downvotes be damned.

Maultasche 10y ago

NASA agreed to do a study to see if they could place humans on the test flight. That seems to me like the NASA equivalent of saying "Sure, I'll look into that" while trying to not look horrified. I'm pretty sure that study will conclude that this is a bad idea.

hackuser 10y ago
I sure hope so! I wouldn't want to be on that flight. The NASA article brought to mind a story of a well-known Cosmonaut knowingly launching in an unreliable vehicle because the politicians insisted. He died. He flew because he didn't want his understudy to be killed in his place. (I'm sure someone on HN knows the story better than I do ...).
- rst 10y ago
  That sounds like Soyuz 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1
godelski 10y ago
I know for a fact that NASA is still concerned about that Helium tank.
- Pfhreak 10y ago
  The explosion from that helium tank was slower than the emergency rockets on the dragon, from what I understand. So, had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event.
  - godelski 10y ago
    The thing is that NASA doesn't want to put anyone on something has the chance of doing that. The emergency system is for emergencies. Ideally it should NEVER be used. Vetting for manned missions is a lot different than cargo. That's all I'm getting at here. When rockets have recently exploded NASA gets pretty worried about putting humans on it.
    - gus_massa 10y ago
      For comparison, the Space Shuttle has NO emergency system and approximately a 2% catastrophic failure rate ...
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        It had a couple abort options if one or more SMEs failed. Unfortunately, none of the catastrophic failures were predicted. Nature has a way to do things we don't expect it to do.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event. Safety isn't defined by, 'did it work out ok?', but by the risk. In this case, the outcome the parent describes is hypothetical; among other things, it assumes the emergency escape system would have worked perfectly. I assume NASA wants to evaluate the risk of the helium tanks, not the hypothetical outcome. For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable.

XorNot 10y ago

I'm pretty sure Musk is doing what's reliably necessary to keep his companies running under Trump. An administration full of oil wealth and climate change deniers are a significant business risk when you make electric cars and have States banking photovoltaics. He needs to be within Trump's monkeysphere.

XJOKOLAT 10y ago
"Trump's monkeysphere" ... I loved that. Thanks for a good chuckle. Downvotes be damned.