Paul O'RorkeApr 21, 2023

spacex rocket explosion (rapid unscheduled dissassembly) is a success
---corporate media

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
---Orwell's Ministry of Truth

Imagine the headlines and news articles if this had been a government (NASA) launch rather than a privatized corporate one

#SPACEX #STARSHIP #MUSK #ORWELL #1984 #SINCLAIRLEWIS #CORPOS

Show threadIcanbobApr 22, 2023

@PaulORorke While I’m not defending Elon, this is not the first time in aeronautics that the “fail, recover and try again” design philosophy has been tried. With the Gossamer Condor it was hugely successful.

https://www.avinc.com/resources/case-studies/view/gossamer-condor-the-first-of-its-kind

Gossamer Condor - The First Of Its Kind

AeroVironment, Inc. is a global leader and manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Tactical Missile Systems used by the United States military and Commercial industries. AeroVironment's multi-domain robotic systems include the Puma AE, Raven B, Wasp AE, Vapor, Quantix, telemax EVO and tEODor EVO.

AeroVironment, Inc.
Show threadHypxApr 22, 2023
@icanbob @PaulORorke This is not the 1960s of rocketry. Most failure modes are understood and can be avoided. Furthermore, failure at this scale leaves you with a giant crater. Ultimately, you lose more money and time by doing things the stupid way. Hence this is a Orwellian rephasing of reality.
Show threadIcanbob
@PaulORorke @Hypx Space X isn’t unique in rocketry stupidity. The Challenger O-Ring saga comes to mind. The whole reason those solid rocket boosters had O-Rings in first place was because politically they had to be manufactured in Utah. This necessitated rail transport and bridge height determined size of sections. A better option to build in one piece in Texas and barge to site was rejected for political reasons.
Apr 22, 2023 at 11:54pmWeb
Show threadHypxApr 22, 2023
@icanbob @PaulORorke The Challenger disaster was an accident after many successful launches. This is much worse. The failure calls into question the fundamental philosophy of the rocket itself.
Show threadIcanbobApr 23, 2023
@PaulORorke @Hypx Not disagreeing, but as an engineer I can’t decide which is worse: design by political committee (Shuttle) or design by “try, fail, try again” (Starship).
Show threadHypxApr 23, 2023
@icanbob @PaulORorke The Shuttle no longer exists. You can only criticize the Starship now.
Show threadPaul O'RorkeApr 24, 2023

@Hypx @icanbob

Yes I know the shuttle no longer exists. Criticizing Starship per se doesn't make sense.

The investigation after the Challenger disaster led to improvements not only in fixing the issues that led to the disaster but also in the risk management effort at NASA (and presumably Morton Thiokol). I am just wondering what the risk management process is at SpaceX (if any) and whether it improves on the past or whether they are starting from scratch or following Tesla's example.

Show threadHypxApr 24, 2023
@PaulORorke @icanbob If you want a positive outcome, then admit that the entire idea needs to be scrapped just like the Space Shuttle. Another example might be the Soviet N1 rocket. A working rocket would look completely different.
Show threadPaul O'RorkeApr 23, 2023
@icanbob @Hypx The corporate influence of Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the solid rocket booster may have had more to do with the disaster than political influences with one possible exception: the Reagan and NASA administrations may have pushed for a launch the day of his evening State of the Union address. After the disaster, the White House claimed Reagan was only going to mention a science experiment on the shuttle in his speech.