5 ms·

Yawn, space is dangerous. We would all still be living in trees with this attitude. I don't believe that we can actually design a system that is safe like this

Yawn, space is dangerous. We would all still be living in trees with this attitude. I don't believe that we can actually design a system that is safe like this, so yes it needs a lot of testing and iterative improvement. In the meantime, we need to use it to launch equipment and a few brave souls that understand the risks. Actually to add to that, I think putting timescales in front of something like this as a tendency to clarify the goals and therefor simplify the engineering. If we sit around for decades trying to shave a couple ounces off every single part and build in triplicate redundancy so its perfect it will fail. If you look at apollo, what you see is that they had a review committee that followed up the work and tested/built their understanding from the ground up. Part of that was ripping out systems that were to complex to be easily understood when possible, and considering how everything worked together. In many ways this appears to be what spaceX is doing, initial design, prove it out with a bunch of launches, fix problems as they appear, etc. So one of most important design goals is designing something that will be launched thousands of times (not necessarily the same rocket, just the scale) rather than something that is designed to be the perfectly safe vehicle for another half dozen launches before we scrap it for another 40 years.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
The problem with this approach is that you don’t get anything for the added risk. We could decide to keep trying. That is, build a rocket, put people on it, send it up, and repeat until one reaches the moon without exploding. That might get us to the moon faster, but it doesn’t improve our knowledge base much faster than carefully managed testing with carefully managed risks. If we get to the moon while taking a big chance, that doesn’t mean we get to cross off the things that could have gone wrong, but didn’t, as solved.
CydeWeys 7y ago
The public has no appetite for dead astronauts. It's simply not workable to be so cavalier with astronaut lives, even if the astronauts themselves are willing.
- matt-attack 7y ago
  Why does the public get an opinion on an individual’s life when they know the risks? To me that’s the height of hubris and is something that needs to get corrected if we’re to move forward.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    The public is horrified at astronauts' death, politicians listen to public opinion, politicians cut budgets to "dangerous missions". PR for space is a very tricky affair.
    - bananabreakfast 7y ago
      The public is horrified at whatever the news tells them to be horrified about. Government employees getting killed in Iraq happens often enough that it doesn't get clicks. Government employees getting killed in Space happens so infrequently that it will get tons of clicks. Simple journalism economics.
  - hootbootscoot 7y ago
    the self-referential irony here is astounding, my fellow member of the public showing your opinion.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Because the public is paying for it.
- rmdashrfstar 7y ago
  That's why a private company can, should, and probably will be so cavalier to launch the willing astronauts.
- ehnto 7y ago
  I think you are right, but there is something wrong if we can't handle an astronaut or two for scientific progress yet are more than happy to throw bodies into the middle-east. So I question whether or not it matters what the public thinks in this area. Maybe they can just do the work without making it a spectacle. Then an astronaut dies, it makes news for a bit, and the distracted populace moves on in a week.
7952 7y ago
The purpose of testing is to give you data on things you cannot prove through technical analysis. But in a risk tolerant culture you will just identify issues that you should already know about. That installing gyro's upside down is a bad idea, or that rubber o rings fail at low temperature. Having a rocket explode is a very expensive way of getting that data, and lead to program delays. The inherent danger of space flight is the reason you have to be rigourous. It is the only way it can possibly be made to work at all. Because people will make stupid mistakes, and the rocket will explode.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

The problem with this approach is that you don’t get anything for the added risk. We could decide to keep trying. That is, build a rocket, put people on it, send it up, and repeat until one reaches the moon without exploding. That might get us to the moon faster, but it doesn’t improve our knowledge base much faster than carefully managed testing with carefully managed risks. If we get to the moon while taking a big chance, that doesn’t mean we get to cross off the things that could have gone wrong, but didn’t, as solved.

CydeWeys 7y ago

The public has no appetite for dead astronauts. It's simply not workable to be so cavalier with astronaut lives, even if the astronauts themselves are willing.

matt-attack 7y ago
Why does the public get an opinion on an individual’s life when they know the risks? To me that’s the height of hubris and is something that needs to get corrected if we’re to move forward.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  The public is horrified at astronauts' death, politicians listen to public opinion, politicians cut budgets to "dangerous missions". PR for space is a very tricky affair.
  - bananabreakfast 7y ago
    The public is horrified at whatever the news tells them to be horrified about. Government employees getting killed in Iraq happens often enough that it doesn't get clicks. Government employees getting killed in Space happens so infrequently that it will get tons of clicks. Simple journalism economics.
- hootbootscoot 7y ago
  the self-referential irony here is astounding, my fellow member of the public showing your opinion.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Because the public is paying for it.
rmdashrfstar 7y ago
That's why a private company can, should, and probably will be so cavalier to launch the willing astronauts.
ehnto 7y ago
I think you are right, but there is something wrong if we can't handle an astronaut or two for scientific progress yet are more than happy to throw bodies into the middle-east. So I question whether or not it matters what the public thinks in this area. Maybe they can just do the work without making it a spectacle. Then an astronaut dies, it makes news for a bit, and the distracted populace moves on in a week.

7952 7y ago

The purpose of testing is to give you data on things you cannot prove through technical analysis. But in a risk tolerant culture you will just identify issues that you should already know about. That installing gyro's upside down is a bad idea, or that rubber o rings fail at low temperature. Having a rocket explode is a very expensive way of getting that data, and lead to program delays. The inherent danger of space flight is the reason you have to be rigourous. It is the only way it can possibly be made to work at all. Because people will make stupid mistakes, and the rocket will explode.