"If private space companies can’t get these basic resupply missions right, why should we trust them to do anything else?"
Because trying to be perfect is expensive and unecessary on unmanned projects. Because insisting on it creates a culture of risk avoidance. Because they are learning from failures. Because space IS hard. NASA doesn't have a perfect batting record, why should private companies who are trying new technologies be expected to?
I don't know, I think there's a good case to be made that if we can't do resupply machines routinely, we certainly can't do manned missions routinely either. The point is that it should be routine. The Space Shuttle was often called an engineering miracle : but no-one wants to fly in a miracle !
I rather doubt anyone involved in the Root Cause/Corrective Action process at SpaceX, or NASA, is taking this casually.
The article works a bit hard at slapping the reader in the face, and I think it is unwarranted.
At the same time there are those who would benefit from stirring some public outrage. Certainly no one at ULA or Boeing would shed a tear if there was a groundswell of outrage directed at SpaceX. Certain Republican Senators might also be pleased to see Commercial Crew die on the vine.
When there are billions of dollars at stake in corporate interests and in federal budgetary funds, not to mention political capital, I tend to take articles like this with a grain of salt.
Meanwhile, in other news, ULA welcomes its newest employee to the PR department, staff writer Loren Grush.
I do think this article is somewhat premature, especially for SpaceX which is still a very young company (with a main goal of establishing a cheap reliable launcher).
"Rocket science engineering is no longer fringe or experimental." ... is not really true. There does not exist a "standard" rocket, let alone any well-established way of ensuring that everything is functioning correctly prior to take off.
"If we intend to be serious about space, we should say, "Yes, it was hard. Why didn’t you succeed?"" The answers are every bit as political as they are technical. I sometimes think we need to quite whining about which space program we like best, pick one and get on with it. NASA is so subject to the whims of the changing administrations that it can't think long-term. Private firms may be less subject to this, especially ones who run by space cadets who really just want to get into space and hang the rest.
At the same time, I share the sentiment that space flight needs to (and can) become routine. It isn't there yet, and it's going to take a lot more investment in that specific goal to make it happen.
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
"If private space companies can’t get these basic resupply missions right, why should we trust them to do anything else?"
ReplyDeleteBecause trying to be perfect is expensive and unecessary on unmanned projects. Because insisting on it creates a culture of risk avoidance. Because they are learning from failures. Because space IS hard. NASA doesn't have a perfect batting record, why should private companies who are trying new technologies be expected to?
I don't know, I think there's a good case to be made that if we can't do resupply machines routinely, we certainly can't do manned missions routinely either. The point is that it should be routine. The Space Shuttle was often called an engineering miracle : but no-one wants to fly in a miracle !
ReplyDeleteI rather doubt anyone involved in the Root Cause/Corrective Action process at SpaceX, or NASA, is taking this casually.
ReplyDeleteThe article works a bit hard at slapping the reader in the face, and I think it is unwarranted.
At the same time there are those who would benefit from stirring some public outrage. Certainly no one at ULA or Boeing would shed a tear if there was a groundswell of outrage directed at SpaceX. Certain Republican Senators might also be pleased to see Commercial Crew die on the vine.
When there are billions of dollars at stake in corporate interests and in federal budgetary funds, not to mention political capital, I tend to take articles like this with a grain of salt.
Meanwhile, in other news, ULA welcomes its newest employee to the PR department, staff writer Loren Grush.
I do think this article is somewhat premature, especially for SpaceX which is still a very young company (with a main goal of establishing a cheap reliable launcher).
ReplyDelete"Rocket science engineering is no longer fringe or experimental."
... is not really true. There does not exist a "standard" rocket, let alone any well-established way of ensuring that everything is functioning correctly prior to take off.
"If we intend to be serious about space, we should say, "Yes, it was hard. Why didn’t you succeed?""
The answers are every bit as political as they are technical. I sometimes think we need to quite whining about which space program we like best, pick one and get on with it. NASA is so subject to the whims of the changing administrations that it can't think long-term. Private firms may be less subject to this, especially ones who run by space cadets who really just want to get into space and hang the rest.
At the same time, I share the sentiment that space flight needs to (and can) become routine. It isn't there yet, and it's going to take a lot more investment in that specific goal to make it happen.