Big bang, shame about the science

The A3 is the first example of our strategy to use space as our test bed, and to tolerate failures by building success into the development path.

You've got to be kidding. Utterly meaningless management-speak drivel. I'd love to be able to get away with this in my job....

Client: "Mike, nobody has been paid this month"

Mike: "Yes, I know... I've been using the payroll as a test bed, to show how we can tolerate failures by building success into the development path"

Client: "Very interesting, Mike, but NOBODY has been paid"

Mike: "I think you are over-dramatising the issue. It's not like anyone has died, is it?"

Client: "Goodbye Mike... nice knowing you... don't come back"

Somebody ought to remind these boys that a rocket is designed to go into space... not blow up on the launch pad. I despair.

When John Glenn was asked what his thoughts were when being launched on his mercury mission, his reply was that he was on top of  a long tube filled with millions of tons of  explosive fuel that was built by the lowest bidder.  This, I think , in a nutshell is the real reason why the rocket exploded.

When Fyneman was part of the investigating team for the shuttle disaster he found that the team was restricted in its investigation into what caused the disaster. It was his tenacity that lead to the discovery that rubber O rings that were suppose to seal the joints in the Side Booster Tanks had been affected by the cold due to the use of cheap material.

HA! I'd forgotten that quote, Brian, and also that it was John Glenn's - it's a classic.

I recall seeing a very good TV movie recently about Feynman and the Challenger investigation. I think this is it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2421662/

we can tolerate failures by building success into the development path

I've cracked it: what it means is that Nasa has to pay them anyway 😉

HA! I’d forgotten that quote, Brian, and also that it was John Glenn’s – it’s a classic. I recall seeing a very good TV movie recently about Feynman and the Challenger investigation. I think this is it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2421662/

.

Yes I saw that film, really good, it was at a stage in Feynman's life that he was dying of radiation poisoning  from his time at Los Alamos. He died soon after.  The woman astronaut who gave him information was Sally Ride who died a couple of years ago.

I think he must have attended the same school of speech as George Bush.

It hurts to see all those experiments gone up in smoke and I feel for the boffins and graduates too.

In all honesty, I do expect a disaster/failure once in a while given the extreme precision of technology involved and the pressure caused by competition and expectations. All considering, I think the ratio of success to failures is amazingly high...at least its what I perceive as I haven't counted anything.

I personally won't jump to any conclusions until the causes are fully investigated. I have a feeling that complacency in engineering is a lot less today than yesteryears, but naturally, it will always linger in places especially when there are long runs of successes. Let's see. I wouldnt want to condemn if they had confidence in their safety checks and overlooked a new type of flaw that was not obvious and listed on established thorough checklists. It could be either negligence (in which case damn them!), or they did everything by the book and was done by an unrecognisable flaw by which I would support their learning from.

Think is one good argument for pursuing unmanned exploration prominently in our first phase of space exploration. Nail unmanned missions first.

Nail unmanned missions first.

The number of unsuccessful launches (red line) seems to have been pretty consistent for the last 30 years:

See here.

Yes, interesting graph and its good to see that the ratio between unsuccessful and successful launches have overall decreased suggesting that they have become more efficient and I like to think more rational in their engineering and politics.

Its also interesting to see a drastic lower amount of launches. Would that suggest lack of government support for space endeavours? Although, there is a welcome uprise in the last few years at least.

Well if you will use some secondhand Russian engines from the 60's what do you expect!

SpaceX have made significant progress by conservative design then test, test, test. Expect to have failures and learn from them. Can't wait to see if they manage to land a Falcon 9 on their floating football field, rated as 50/50 by Mr Musk. Ok there is no man on board (yet), but would NASA today accept this level of risk? Probably not, too risk adverse.

Well if you will use some secondhand Russian engines from the 60’s what do you expect!

The irony is, the Russians had a successful cargo launch hours later! Russian technology vs Soviet technology?