4 ms·

The article assumes that SpaceShipOne's design was actually a good design. It wasn't. To be precise, it was a good design to satisfy the artificial requirement

by adwn 6y ago

The article assumes that SpaceShipOne's design was actually a good design. It wasn't. To be precise, it was a good design to satisfy the artificial requirements of the prize, but nothing else. The design doesn't scale. The hybrid rocket motor has been the source of countless headaches, lousy performance, and more than a decade of delays, the feathering mechanism has already cost the life of a test pilot, and the need for a pilot plus co-pilot severely reduces the payload capacity. Now, the article's thesis – that good and bad ideas are sometimes hard to distinguish before they've been tried – is still true, but the author chose a bad example.

darkerside 6y ago
It's a great example. The only reason these factors clearly outweigh the positives is because the benefit of hindsight. Or do you imagine the brightest minds of NASA just weren't thinking clearly for decades? The killer feature of the shuttle was supposed to be the cost savings from being able to make multiple trips using the same equipment (sound familiar?). It turned out not to be a feasible solution from a technical cost standpoint, but if people can't clearly estimate the cost of adding a new feature to a website, I totally believe would have been indistinguishable from a good idea at the time.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > It turned out not to be a feasible solution from a technical cost standpoint The shuttle turned out not to be a feasible solution because it was loaded down with other requirements that had nothing to do with the killer feature you describe. A key one was the requirement from the US Air Force that the shuttle have enough cross range capability to be launched into a polar orbit and then return to the launch site after one orbit [1]. That was what drove costs up to the point where the shuttle wasn't feasible any more in terms of the killer feature. [1] https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/scota.html https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/scota.html
surjansingh 6y ago
As the author of the article, maybe I can explain why I think it’s a good example. I’ll just say - I absolutely could have chosen something that was more of a slam dunk great idea (in hindsight) with tons of follow-on success. I mostly chose it because the Rotary Rocket and SpaceShipOne sit next to each other in Mojave and got me thinking about this in the first place. As you said yourself, it was a good design to win the prize. That to me is the key. It did everything it set out to accomplish. Your comments all relate to the scaled up SpaceShipTwo - a completely different vehicle - which I agree that the jury might still be out on. But to me, that’s like saying that a hang glider is a bad idea if someone tries to make a hang glider for ten people. Is it the hang glider that’s the bad idea or the fact that someone’s trying to scale something that maybe doesn’t scale well? That it was the first private crewed spaceflight shouldn’t be underestimated either. I think this list of human spaceflights really puts it in context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights Thanks for reading and for your perspective.

by adwn 6y ago

darkerside 6y ago

It's a great example. The only reason these factors clearly outweigh the positives is because the benefit of hindsight. Or do you imagine the brightest minds of NASA just weren't thinking clearly for decades? The killer feature of the shuttle was supposed to be the cost savings from being able to make multiple trips using the same equipment (sound familiar?). It turned out not to be a feasible solution from a technical cost standpoint, but if people can't clearly estimate the cost of adding a new feature to a website, I totally believe would have been indistinguishable from a good idea at the time.

pdonis 6y ago
> It turned out not to be a feasible solution from a technical cost standpoint The shuttle turned out not to be a feasible solution because it was loaded down with other requirements that had nothing to do with the killer feature you describe. A key one was the requirement from the US Air Force that the shuttle have enough cross range capability to be launched into a polar orbit and then return to the launch site after one orbit [1]. That was what drove costs up to the point where the shuttle wasn't feasible any more in terms of the killer feature. [1] https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/scota.html https://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/scota.html

surjansingh 6y ago

As the author of the article, maybe I can explain why I think it’s a good example. I’ll just say - I absolutely could have chosen something that was more of a slam dunk great idea (in hindsight) with tons of follow-on success. I mostly chose it because the Rotary Rocket and SpaceShipOne sit next to each other in Mojave and got me thinking about this in the first place. As you said yourself, it was a good design to win the prize. That to me is the key. It did everything it set out to accomplish. Your comments all relate to the scaled up SpaceShipTwo - a completely different vehicle - which I agree that the jury might still be out on. But to me, that’s like saying that a hang glider is a bad idea if someone tries to make a hang glider for ten people. Is it the hang glider that’s the bad idea or the fact that someone’s trying to scale something that maybe doesn’t scale well? That it was the first private crewed spaceflight shouldn’t be underestimated either. I think this list of human spaceflights really puts it in context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights Thanks for reading and for your perspective.