Most troubling of all, the internal assumption at MSFC is that the first SLS flight will have a built-in risk of failure of around 8%. This risk is being “baked in” to the design of SLS in part due to decisions being made at MSFC about software and avionics – decisions that are being made so as to not surface troublesome issues that no one wants to deal with. One can imagine that safety folks at MSFC are nervous.
This is no way to build a rocket folks.
Once you understand that (unlike at SpaceX) the goal is not to build a rocket, it all makes sense.
This is an interesting announcement, in the context of Elon’s Mars speech next week in Guadalajara:
At this stage of the investigation, preliminary review of the data and debris suggests that a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank took place. All plausible causes are being tracked in an extensive fault tree and carefully investigated. Through the fault tree and data review process, we have exonerated any connection with last year’s CRS-7 mishap.
Makes sense, but still doesn’t sound like they’ve gotten to the root cause.
…through formal software verification. This seems like sort of a big deal. Particularly in the era of the Internet of Things and self-driving cars. Of course, the weakest link in security will remain the flawed unit between the seat and the keyboard.
An interesting article, from my local paper, about the renaissance of aerospace in southern California in general and the South Bay in particular. Not sure Interorbital should be included in the list, though.
I just received a review copy of this new book, which looks quite interesting, given that I personally know almost everyone involved, for decades (though I don’t make an appearance). Should be a good history of SEDS, ISU, and the X-Prize.