Posted on 02/01/2018 9:37:01 AM PST by Voption
Challenger disaster. was not a matter of design or management but environmental and political correctness.
...
Really? The Challenger disaster was due to o-ring failure from being too cold. There were two engineers who warned management that it was going to happen that morning.
“The politicians and the Generals at the top are not there to protect, help, or advance our country anymore”
Nope. They’re there to make sure Lockheed/Boeing/NorthropGrumman stay in the gravy.
Because that’s where they will be when they separate.
The problem for them in the commercial world - and eventually the government world - is that they will get run over by the SpaceX’s and Blue Origins who have tens of billions in venture capital available to them.
That was due to getting rid of the type that worked because of environmental concerns in the manufacturing process. Of course some people knew it would fail.
I give up.
I was told that the Saturn V was ready to launch once the weight of the paperwork matched the weight of the Saturn.
So tell me, when is Boeing doing an in-flight abort test of Starliner? Oh, they’re not doing one? But SpaceX has to? Yeah, must be nice to have a ton of congress critters in your pocket who read BULLSHIT statements about SpaceX losing a payload THEY DIDN’T LOSE.
” but NASA is in no position to be claiming superiority.”
You are, of course, completely correct. Rockets shouldn’t randomly blow up while you are fueling them either. I am not very impressed with either of NASA or SpaceX’s track records on safety.
“when is Boeing doing an in-flight abort test of Starliner? “
Aren’t they using almost the same abort system developed for Orion? Which was already tested? And SpaceX did blow up a payload on the pad not that long ago.
It was not that long ago that spaceX has a president in their pocket (Musk is a huge leftist). Sure their is crony stuff on both sides but at least defend OUR cronies
“Contractors love it, they just keep sending those invoices.”
No we don’t. Maybe our book keepers do but the engineers and mangers hate getting jerked around and then blamed for lack of performance.
Nice try. I’ve been in the biz for 35 years, seen it all.
The major defense contractor in the U.S. operates this way as a matter of business policy. Been there, seen that.
Not blaming them. The government creates the situation, and the business would be doing themselves a disservice if they didn’t act that way.
But it’s not in the interest of either mission success or the taxpayer.
The Apollo program wasn't supposed to end on the Moon -- the intent was to assemble in Earth orbit a round-trip manned mission to Mars, while continuing to use lunar landings to build an experienced corps of astronauts capable of long-duration flight and high functioning on an airless desolate ****hole. Von Braun's calc was that twelve Saturn V launches would be needed to assemble ONE manned Mars mission. Yes, and it would have erred on the side of safety and redundancy -- and we'd have been on Mars 30 years ago.
Literally the only ticket will be Musk's SpaceX, assuming that he sticks to orbital space, instead of trying -- unsuccessfully -- to sell the FAA and other national entities on the use of huge-assed rocket trips across the Pacific in order to build up an economy of scale and finance his, uh, flawed Mars colonization plans. Thanks Voption, and welcome to FR.
“Aren’t they using almost the same abort system developed for Orion?”
No. Not even close. Orion’s launch abort tower is a traditional puller design using solid fuel made by Orbital ATK. Starliner uses a pusher design built into the service module with liquid fueled engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne. They couldn’t be more different. So again I ask you, when is the in-flight abort test of the Starliner abort system?
“And SpaceX did blow up a payload on the pad not that long ago”
Yeah, so it’s a good thing their pad abort mode was already tested successfully. As a matter of fact, loading the astronauts before the fuel gives you the ability to ensure they’re strapped in and ready for an automatic abort if one is needed throughout the fueling process.
In hindsight, it’s actually safer than loading astronauts onto a rocket that is already full with fuel. Unless you like disembarking the astronauts while there’s an invisible hydrogen fire on the pad, like what happened once with shuttle on STS-41-D. Honestly they’re lucky they didn’t burn to death. They would have run right into the invisible flame had they taken the emergency slidewire from the pad.
“It was not that long ago that spaceX has a president in their pocket (Musk is a huge leftist). Sure their is crony stuff on both sides but at least defend OUR cronies”
Bullshit. There’s no excuse for cronyism on either side. I was against it when Obama was doing it with Musk, cancelling the Constellation program to ensure his buddy was the only game in town for human spaceflight, and I’m against it when Republicans shill for ULA. I don’t care that Musk is a leftist, he’s also a businessman with a highly disruptive business model and the entrenched interests are responding by trying to pull congresscritter strings to put more pressure on SpaceX than the competition. It’s not right when EITHER side does it and it’s a shame you’re just a self-admitted hypocrite.
Better to load fuel with astronauts in it haha! Now I have heard everything. Where did you read that? An article by SpaceX? Funny how no one else agrees.
Invisible hydrogen fire? The Falcon does not USE hydrogen.
And where did you read that SpaceX is REQUIRED to do that test? If they want to test their system extra that is their business.
“and it’s a shame you’re just a self-admitted hypocrite.”
Oh screw you. I was trying to have a polite conversation. That was a joke. Take your lack of humor and stuff it. I am just saying as long as you are going to go through logical conditions to justify something it might as well be something on your own side.
“Nice try. I’ve been in the biz for 35 years, seen it all.”
Really? You have seen engineers all cheer when the contract is changes and postponed and put on hold and all that crap that happens? Really? Everyone at the contractors really loves it? Really? Well I guess I am about 15 years short of seeing and have not yet seen ‘it all’.
But if you have NOT seem engineers be happy when a contract is jerked around then you are deliberately missing my point.
The first goal of every business is to STAY IN BUINESS. The part “the contractors love” is having jobs.
“Not blaming them.”
It sure sounded like it. A lot of people are out here doing the best we can to make things the government and military needs. All we can do is what the contract tells us. Sometimes no matter how stupid. If you did not mean to denigrate all those folks (apparently including yourself) then you might want to pay more attention to your wording. I a sick and tired of getting craped on for doing exactly what a government contracting office told us to do.
“I’m against it when Republicans shill for ULA”
Link me the post where I shilled for ULA and I will admit being a hypocrite.
“You have seen engineers all cheer when the contract is changes and postponed and put on hold and all that crap that happens?”
No, but definitely seen managers chuckle and tell me to just stay with it, it’s an opportunity to extend it out.
Look, you know as well as I do that the guys who move up are the ones who don’t have an issue with this. The companies are agnostic about it. If that’s what the government wants, that’s what they get. The mgmt owes it to the shareholders to do what the customer wants, even if the customer is crazy.
Everyone loves to see hardware roll out the door. But if it doesn’t, and the gravy keeps flowing, they can’t get too upset. Still got jobs, right? They just get jaded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.