2 ms·
That’s a great point, because it bellies the core strategic problems with SLS. When your rocket has already flown a lot, and getting it human-rated does not slo
by philistine 4y ago
That’s a great point, because it bellies the core strategic problems with SLS. When your rocket has already flown a lot, and getting it human-rated does not slow your rate of launches, you can afford to take your time not to kill anyone. The same plan is being put in place with Starship, which will fly a lot before they put people in it.
SLS is one and done. It’s the old Apollo and Shuttle strategy, with the post-Columbia and Challenger risk management. It’s a bad strategy.
- Karellen 4y agoThe first 19 Falcon 9s were "one and done". But even after the first, those next 18 still had a fair few launch delays between them too. Getting your launches right is always a challenge for any new rocket family, and delaying your early test flights when (not if) you see unexpected telemetry data during the countdown should be seen as normal while you're learning how your rocket works in the real world. Even with Starship, where cratering the first few test article hops was considered pretty likely, they had a bunch of holds and scrubs during the countdowns to those launch attempts. I expect the next test flight not to have zero delays either. And SLS is being cautious. Delays should be expected, and not seen as some terrible bit of mismanagement. "Go fever" is real, and is a bad thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_fever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_fever
- philistine 4y agoWhen I said one-and-done, I meant that they're flying an empty one and the second one already has people in it. That's the losing strategy.