Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by neurotech1 on Friday August 03, 2012 @09:10PM
(#4337036)
Saying "we almost lost Atlantis" only confirms the point that they could have mitigated the foam lost before Columbia, and they could have fixed the O-Rings before Challenger. Not investigating those incidents properly, is a human factors failure.
I do agree that design decisions like side-by-side staging of SRBs wasn't the safest choice. Safer abort scenarios is definitely a feature of Dragon.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by anovikov on Sunday August 05, 2012 @10:25AM
(#4341503)
One problem i see with spacex is their propulsive landing feature. What if things go wrong at that point, like a software or a sensor problem causing it to descend at a speed too high/not realizing it approaches the surface/just hovering and expending the propelland quickly? If landing on land, they don't have any backup, and astronauts are doomed, falling from even very low altitude (30-50ft) will be fatal.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by ams6110 on Friday August 03, 2012 @10:48PM
(#4337306)
Remember the space shuttle is a 1970s design. I'd certainly expect that a 21st century design would fare better in nearly every regard.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by InclinedPlane on Saturday August 04, 2012 @03:06AM
(#4337832)
To some degree that's the case. The Falcon 9/Dragon do very much get a benefit from modern technology. Better machine tools, high-speed digital communications and onboard computers, better material science, the ability to run computer simulations of different flight profiles or to model the operation of a rocket engine, etc. However, in another sense the Falcon 9/Dragon represent very primitive designs. Indeed, 1950s or 1960s designs even. A simple cylindrical 2 stage LOX/Kerosene booster in combination with a simple frustrum shaped manned capsule. These designs have heritage going all the way back to project Mercury.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by rdl on Saturday August 04, 2012 @07:08PM
(#4339987)
Yeah, and guns are vastly more reliable than rockets or missiles, too. Sometimes old and simple is the way to have high reliability, sacrificing performance.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by sterna on Saturday August 04, 2012 @05:10PM
(#4339665)
The space shuttle was a poor design in many respects even by the standards of the 1970s as described in Feynman's Challenger crash report http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html
Good design does magically appear as time goes by but is a result of a sound design and testing process. Fortunately, I am sure SpaceX is aware of this so they will most likely get a much better track record than the space shuttle.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by kingkawn on Saturday August 04, 2012 @02:47AM
(#4337805)
why?
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by TeMPOraL on Saturday August 04, 2012 @04:13AM
(#4337916)
Because we have new materials, new technologies, and 40 years of experience with space plane design and operations, that's why.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by kingkawn on Saturday August 04, 2012 @10:21AM
(#4338515)
The U-2 spy plane is in service after the retirement of its original replacement.
Re:SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shu...
by InclinedPlane on Saturday August 04, 2012 @10:57AM
(#4338608)
The B-52 is still a heavily used part of the US heavy bomber fleet and current plans are to keep it in service until 2040 and perhaps beyond (which is longer than the B-1b is planned to be in service).
Of course if an organization ever gets complacent about safety then things can go downhill, but in the case of SpaceX they have a fundamentally more robust vehicle design, a system with more and safer abort scenarios, and every possible reason to maintain a high degree of vigilance about safety (if for no other reason than their company's image and financial bottom line).