Business, Space

George Nield

6 Comments

An interview on the subject of space transportation safety. Just for the record, I have always thought, and continue to think, that the notion that private operators are likely to be less safe than NASA to be foolishly ludicrous. All the incentives are the other way.

6 thoughts on “George Nield”

  2. Consider the consequences for failure for NASA verses private companies. When a fatal accident happens in a private company, they face not only bad publicity but lawsuits, loss of jobs, loss of business and possibly bankrupsy.

    How many people were fired after Challenger? Not “allowed to retire” but fired. How about after Columbia? How many lawsuits did NASA get hit with after those accidents? Hell, they still got their full budgets while grounded for over 2 years after each accident. The only negative consequence NASA suffered was negative publicity and some congressional hearings. Failure had virtually no consequences.

    1. They actually get slight budget increases for return to flight efforts, usually. And after the “new safety procedures” have been implemented, operating costs go up, ballooning ops budget.

  3. NASA was actually *rewarded* for Challenger, they got the ISS to make up for the lost payloads. They were again rewarded after Columbia (Constellation), and after their failure with Constellation they were rewarded with SLS + MPCV.

    1. NASA was actually *rewarded* for Challenger, they got the ISS to make up for the lost payloads.

      Not really. The space station program already existed at the time of Challenger (it was announced by Reagan in 1984). The only “reward” that NASA got for Challenger was Endeavor.

      1. OK, but if they hadn’t got it (and I seem to recall it survived by a single vote during the Clinton years), there wouldn’t have been any payloads for the Shuttle anymore. Payloads which could easily have been designed for launch on an EELV.

Comments are closed.