It’s a mission they came up with for an overpriced, non-existent and unnecessary rocket looking for a mission. And note this rationale:
She and other NASA officials note that the advanced propulsion required for ARM would be enabling technology for a broad range of future missions and that ARM would be a crucial test for many deep-space activities crucial for someday reaching Mars. And it would do all this while keeping astronauts sufficiently close to home so that if something goes wrong, they could attempt an emergency return to Earth.
Doesn’t sound like he’s going to be able to tell NTSB much about what happened. I’d like to get his impression of the vibration environment with the new engine.
I should note, I really don’t “worship” Branson. I have a lot of problems with him. My piece was more of a reaction to Kluger’s bashing than a defense of him per se.
I respond to Jeffrey Kluger’s Branson bashing, over at The New Atlantis.
[Update a few minutes later]
Meghan McArdle says that of course space tourism will continue. The notion that a fatality in a flight test would destroy an industry is pretty stupid.
Also, nothing has changed in the past decade: Alex Tabarrok still doesn’t understand the difference between orbital and suborbital flight, or between flight test and operations.
I’m sure that you’re as shocked as I am that Sir Richard’s statement on Saturday is at variance with reality. I think the technical business term for this is “fiasco.” And I’m angry that it has so tainted the industry, not to mention given the FAA an excuse to regulate, if they wish to.