Space and Science BS Thread

Damn, looks like they’re cracking down on spectators for demo-2
But it makes sense...

https://mobile.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1253433907732598785?s=19

 

https://youtu.be/cos2CBkg8kY

 

That’s what I said

 

One thing he misses though is the level of oversight on the SpaceX is much lower than anything NASA does. Basically everything is streamlined including the testing and QA. If SpaceX loses one Astronaut the cost savings will be gone as the bureaucracy comes down and makes the independent space companies follow a higher standard then even NASA does. I mean NASA accidents have happened basically due to skipping steps and NASA still skips steps because it's political and administrators are allowed, still, to override sound engineering decisions. If SpaceX has a human loss accident they'll be forced to play to another standard that probably won't be attainable.

 

and Nye would never say what I just said because pointing out the flaws of the NASA administration and how two separate inquiries have changed almost nothing is not allowed within the scientific community. It's an untouchable subject.

 

Though he doesn’t take it head on, Nye does get at the inefficiencies of the NASA system.

I think SpaceX and the others understand what the loss of one life in their vehicle will mean. Space travel is a deadly business. Death is inevitable.

There will be some sort of shut down, investigation, ‘methodical’ RTF. Repeat. Until it becomes akin to airline crashes.

We’ve seen some of it already with the Starliner failure barely affecting SpaceX operations if it did at all.

 

How many astronauts has NASA lost?

 

Over a dozen. I would have to look it up but I know the three on the ground in Apollo 1, the Challanger, and Columbia. All were preventable if the proper original engineering safety recommendations were followed. NASA brass basically killed those astronauts.

 

I believe that SpaceX won't get the same leeway NASA gets for loss of life accidents, but who knows. As for the airliner example it's a good one but it only applies once we look at airline travelers and astronauts the same, which won't be for decades at least.

 

So, who has the lower level on insight?

 

Not sure I understand the question. If you're asking who has the better QC/QA by linking private industry with quality we don't know if that's true at this point. We actually won't know until SpaceX has their first fatality accident. Of course that assumes they do. Let's not forget that Elon's other interests do not have a good reputation for QC/QA. No one really knows if SpaceX is cutting any corners on their manned program.

I'm simply speculating that all this optimism around private space industry should somewhat be tempered with the problems that could occur. We don't know if SpaceX will get the same free pass on accidents, and yeah in most ways that's what NASA got in all three of those accidents, that NASA had.

 

SpaceX gets plenty of NASA review and oversight as part of their commercial crew contract, so it's not like it's a black box from NASA or anything.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

 

I disagree about NASA brass and Apollo 1. We/they were all learning - doing something that had never been done before.

The good thing that came out of that accident - the redesign of the command module allowed us to recover the crew of Apollo 13. Had we been using the old design, they probably would not have made it back.

 

I'd have to dig back into it but from what I remember it had been pointed out by an engineering team that the test didn't need to be done with such a high concentration of oxygen in the capsule. I agree that they get leeway because they were learning but, still, that incident 100% showed that NASA needed to change their view on safety which they never really did. Basically every inquiry has found systemic problems with the way NASA handles safety decisions yet nothing changes. It's actually pretty funny when you think about it in a detached way. How much money has been wasted on trying to change NASA like a bad partner in a relationship?

 

That's the kicker, they had done it before, in Gemini. They learned how to build capsules with minimal wiring and sensible hatches that opened outward. The didn't use pure oxygen.

Interesting take on the redesign as a result of the Apollo 1 fire and the ability to get Apollo 13 safely back. What do you know about the changes that helped make this happen?

Related, anyone interested in this era should read John Young's autobiography "

$17 Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and Space

Forever Young". At one point he was the most experienced astronaut at NASA but most people have never heard of him.

He was there for all three missions that resulted in loss of crew.

He concludes the Shuttle never made it beyond the experimental stage.

 

The shuttle never did iterate fast and often.

 

I don't know any of the specifics, but hearing from some of the engineers that were there, that is their strong opinion. Just about everything in the capsule was redesigned.

I wonder if there is a public document detailing the engineering changes made to the capsule.

 

“Ultimately, at least 1,341 design changes were made for the command module.” Pg. 115, Forever Young, referencing the response to the fire.

I’m sure it would be a long highly technical document...

 

I'm sure - but would be very interesting to read. Assuming you can stay awake...