Janet VertesiWell, if today is any indication there’s one thing SpaceX can do that NASA definitely can’t: Have a massive and much-hyped spacecraft blow up spectacularly after launch and then the camera pans to everyone applauding wildly and saying, “Wow, what a great test, we learned so much!” instead of “Wow, how dangerous and irresponsible, NASA has lost its touch, we can’t trust them, maybe should give all its money to some upstart company.”
DJGummikuh@cyberlyra while I actively despise Musk, as a a software developer I acknowledge that SpaceX has trimmed their whole operation on an iterative approach. I have no solid opinion on NASA's operation (mainly because you must admit that SpaceX's PR-game is also levels above that of NASA) but the mere fact that SLS is throw-away puts them at a huge disadvantage. Eventually, Starship will no longer explode and then learning & data-gathering becomes ever cheaper for SpaceX
@DJGummikuh They are hugely different operations. SpaceX is very Silicon Valley in about every respect. MUCH smaller, focused on a few outputs, lots of investment capital, borrowing software-dev style processes to rocketry (agile, cross-function teams etc). NASA isn't a monolith: it's a big agency spanning multiple orgs, institutions, and microcultures. The Pathfinder and MER missions were also small and agile, accepting a very high risk that human spaceflight can't afford.
@cyberlyra that is out of the question. I just think that it was completely acceptable and understandable to rate Spaceship's flight including it's destruction an astounding success despite the pre-emptive end.
@DJGummikuh Yes, I agree in the sense that there is always a lot we can learn from tests. And I hope SpaceX got the information they needed (they are great with sensor data and cameras etc) to learn from it. I just spend a ton of time with NASA engineers who know they absolutely cannot under any circumstance allow themselves to do the same.
@cyberlyra I believe that, in another thread, the political difficulties were already discussed. I liked one of the announcers statement somewhere during the cast that success would be defined by being able to re-use the launch platform 🤣 also, I mean this was the first launch of the whole rig and they already outlived every single launch of the N1 (the only other rocket with so many engine) by a factor of almost 2.5.
@cyberlyra also yes of course, investor money plays a tremendous role in being able to just detonate rockets left and right, but this is also really about the mindset. In many ways, a failure is WAY more valuable during development of anything if you have the correct approach and are prepared to utilize the learnings to their fullest extend. I believe it's fair to say that SpaceX is mastering this skilll
@cyberlyra I just recently saw a video of a glass artist who lived by a similar code and it was really interesting to see the parallels in two professions which couldn't be further apart. He essentially said "the moment a project is a failure I try to make it the biggest failure I can so I can learn the maximum amount from it" and I think there is a very deep understanding of iterative approaches in this philosophy
@DJGummikuh Sure, this is like Miles Davis saying if you play a wrong note, play it again! Yes undoubtedly learning from failure and it's super valuable. But it's not a mindset problem within NASA that SpaceX has somehow got right. It's a public funding and public mindset problem. NASA can't fail this big and this publicly, even as a learning opportunity, and not suffer reviews and budget slashes and opeds and everything saying it's a Failure with a capital F. That's a broader cultural issue.
@cyberlyra I see what you are getting at. Yeah, this is definitely a cultural (or I belive at its root, predominantly a political) issue. Not one that you could blame SpaceX for but I can only fantasize of a world where petty political games do not impede humanities Evolution to a space-faring race the way they currently do 😐