3 ms·
> innovation basically isn’t possible within an aggressively safety optimizing regime. What? Spacex is innovating in an aggressively safety optimizing regime.
by krisoft 4y ago
> innovation basically isn’t possible within an aggressively safety optimizing regime.
What? Spacex is innovating in an aggressively safety optimizing regime. Their rocket blown up and nobody got hurt. Nobody was even in danger.
There were a few regretable accidents and deaths during construction, but it is not like that is the secret to their success.
So how do you square that with your assertion that you can’t have both innovation and safety?
- AbrahamParangi 4y agoWell, if you define safety as “few deaths” vs “few explosions” then, sure. If SpaceX had to 100% avoid explosions they would make much less progress than they do.
- krisoft 4y agoBut don’t be silly. Obviously safety is about avoiding harm to humans and avoiding damage to third parties. “Avoiding explosions” is usually a good partial proxy to achieve this goal but not always. In terms of rocketry you can’t reliably avoid explosions. So you do other things like launching towards an ocean, maritime exlusion zones, NOTAMs. Even with manned rockets we usually can’t entirely avoid explosions but instead furnish the manned compartment with some means of an escape system. Have you thought about why SpaceX a company headquartered in Hawthorne, California is testing their rockets from Boca Chica, Texas? Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to just wheel the rocket out from their HQ and launch it right from there? Of course it would be, but when things predictably go wrong they would rain metal shrapnel on lovely Californian suburbs. The whole reason why they built a launch pad on a coast is safety. Not safety by not exploding things, but safety by making sure that when things explode people and other people’s property will be unharmed.