8 ms·

Not sure SpaceX makes it seem easy. To me it's more like they get a free pass for a lot of failures because people like what they're doing and think the compan

Not sure SpaceX makes it seem easy. To me it's more like they get a free pass for a lot of failures because people like what they're doing and think the company is cool.

AWildC182 7y ago
The story "cowboy innovates rapidly, kills someone" sells a lot easier than "old crusty firm attempts to take zero risks, floats on past success, still kills someone"
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
One thing I learned from a recent Everyday Astronaut video is that NASA has a long history of trying to calculate the chances of failure for a vehicle before it has ever flown. They got it wrong with the space shuttle for example. And this method requires a lot of extra factors of safety and expensive parts. An alternate method is to test in flight, and this is what SpaceX does. Boeing uses the other method. So Boeing systems are supposed to be relatively failure free, while some SpaceX systems may at some point be expected to fail. Of course SpaceX is supposed to have their testing done before humans get onboard, so those systems should still be reliable. But a big difference is Boeing tests on the ground and SpaceX tests in flight.
KoftaBob 7y ago
They're also a very young company in the space, with a fraction of the experience that the incumbents have. It's more understandable to make mistakes when you're that new to such a complex industry.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Is there any real US experience left with creating manned capsules for space? I would guess there are no Apollo engineers available, and Shuttle engineers for the same had a very different configuration. For general space experience, also the ability to maintain controlled processes for existing space vehicles is not a fully overlapping skill set with developing new space vehicles. In a way, every company is starting from new using historical data.
eddieh 7y ago
People don't even remember the SpaceX failures. SpaceX CRS-1's secondary payload was left in an unstable orbit and ORBCOMM's $10 million prototype burned up in Earth's atmosphere about 4 days later. CRS-2 had an issue involving the RCS thruster, but was able to recover. CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died). The $200 million Amos-6 satellite was lost in a launch pad explosion and Musk, being the paranoid weirdo he is, initially blamed it on imaginary United Launch Alliance saboteurs—for which there was an investigation by the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing at Musk's request. Notably, ULA has a nearly perfect record (they've never lost a vehicle, only one or two payloads didn't reach the correct orbit) and ULA has launched nearly twice as many times compared to SpaceX. While the SpaceX's record is very bad by modern standards.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  This is a highly disingenuous post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload > Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload. As for this... > CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died) Had it been a crewed mission, the parachutes would've been active. It's not standard practice to have a escape rockets or armed parachutes on ascent for cargo flights, SpaceX or otherwise. Standards are different for crewed flights.
  - eddieh 7y ago
    For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. For CRS-7 Wikipedia says "SpaceX officials stated that it could have been recovered if the parachutes had deployed, but the software in the capsule did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation."

Not sure SpaceX makes it seem easy. To me it's more like they get a free pass for a lot of failures because people like what they're doing and think the company is cool.

AWildC182 7y ago

The story "cowboy innovates rapidly, kills someone" sells a lot easier than "old crusty firm attempts to take zero risks, floats on past success, still kills someone"

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

One thing I learned from a recent Everyday Astronaut video is that NASA has a long history of trying to calculate the chances of failure for a vehicle before it has ever flown. They got it wrong with the space shuttle for example. And this method requires a lot of extra factors of safety and expensive parts. An alternate method is to test in flight, and this is what SpaceX does. Boeing uses the other method. So Boeing systems are supposed to be relatively failure free, while some SpaceX systems may at some point be expected to fail. Of course SpaceX is supposed to have their testing done before humans get onboard, so those systems should still be reliable. But a big difference is Boeing tests on the ground and SpaceX tests in flight.

KoftaBob 7y ago

They're also a very young company in the space, with a fraction of the experience that the incumbents have. It's more understandable to make mistakes when you're that new to such a complex industry.

dv_dt 7y ago
Is there any real US experience left with creating manned capsules for space? I would guess there are no Apollo engineers available, and Shuttle engineers for the same had a very different configuration. For general space experience, also the ability to maintain controlled processes for existing space vehicles is not a fully overlapping skill set with developing new space vehicles. In a way, every company is starting from new using historical data.

eddieh 7y ago

People don't even remember the SpaceX failures. SpaceX CRS-1's secondary payload was left in an unstable orbit and ORBCOMM's $10 million prototype burned up in Earth's atmosphere about 4 days later. CRS-2 had an issue involving the RCS thruster, but was able to recover. CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died). The $200 million Amos-6 satellite was lost in a launch pad explosion and Musk, being the paranoid weirdo he is, initially blamed it on imaginary United Launch Alliance saboteurs—for which there was an investigation by the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing at Musk's request. Notably, ULA has a nearly perfect record (they've never lost a vehicle, only one or two payloads didn't reach the correct orbit) and ULA has launched nearly twice as many times compared to SpaceX. While the SpaceX's record is very bad by modern standards.

ceejayoz 7y ago
This is a highly disingenuous post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload > Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload. As for this... > CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died) Had it been a crewed mission, the parachutes would've been active. It's not standard practice to have a escape rockets or armed parachutes on ascent for cargo flights, SpaceX or otherwise. Standards are different for crewed flights.
- eddieh 7y ago
  For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. For CRS-7 Wikipedia says "SpaceX officials stated that it could have been recovered if the parachutes had deployed, but the software in the capsule did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation."