11 thoughts on “This Morning’s Historic Launch (And Landing)”

  1. “While risk can often be reduced or controlled, there comes a point where the removal of all risk is either impossible or so impractical that it completely undermines the nature of what NASA was created to do, and that is to pioneer the future.”

  2. It *is* a perspective that has positive aspects. His equation of accepting risk with launching humans on the first flight of a new vehicle *not* engineered to be treated that way, is participation in insanity, however. While accepting risk is necessary, repeating folly will get us what we came so close to on the first Columbia launch.

    I suppose he doesn’t want to close off to future access NASA sources that he would have offended by noting the hypocrisy of continual changes to CC requirements, while SLS flies humans one flight #1 without need.

  3. “It has been nearly six years,” since the United States launched human beings into space. We might do so again, in a year, or two . . . maybe . . . someday.

  4. The difference between government funding and private funding is that when government funded missions become routine and boring funding is lost.
    When privately funded mission become routine and lose drama, then is the time to invest.
    Rockets launch, IPO’s launch.

  5. The difference between public and private is who’s money.

    companies tend to embrace calculated risk as a way to iterate and learn while still developing their products

    Which is the optimum strategy and exactly as it should be.

    Govt. is spending other peoples money and efficiency is bad from their perspective (within reason. They can’t be too blatant about it.)

  6. My take on risk is there has to be a reason.

    I think crewing the first Shuttle launch was a huge risk, but needful, because the shuttle, at that time, could not operate unmanned and was a reusable spacecraft. Had it been capable of operating unmanned at that time, I’d think differently.

    SLS, on the other hand, does not *require* crew, so can operate unmanned. There is thus no reason for a crewed first flight – no rational reason, anyway.

    Today’s launch and landing is, IMHO, a sign that the real future of NASA, if it has one, lies on pad 39A, not pad 39b.

    1. Had it been capable of operating unmanned at that time, I’d think differently.

      Theoretically, it was. The risk to the vehicle on landing approach would have been considerable, however. John Young, discussing the topic, in his 2006 interview with collectSPACE, said:

      “They wanted to fly the thing unmanned. I went to many, many meetings where they wanted to fly the thing unmanned, but finally the program manager up at Headquarters, John Yardley, he said he wasn’t going to come across California with nobody in the spacecraft.

      “So, we got to fly it manned. It’s probably the safe way to do it. We looked at California and there were all kinds of places you can land out there…”

      SLS, on the other hand, does not *require* crew, so can operate unmanned. There is thus no reason for a crewed first flight – no rational reason, anyway.

      It’s politics.

  7. Launching Echostar 23 on Feb 28 is a 9 day interval between launches at Pad 39A. A redesigned TEL (TransporterErectorLauncher), whose umbilici don’t need to be replaced, speeds the process. That has to be a record.

Comments are closed.