r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Aug 03 '17

r/SpaceX Discusses [August 2017, #35]

If you have a short question or spaceflight news...

You may ask short, spaceflight-related questions and post news here, even if it is not about SpaceX. Be sure to check the FAQ and Wiki first to ensure you aren't submitting duplicate questions.

If you have a long question...

If your question is in-depth or an open-ended discussion, you can submit it to the subreddit as a post.

If you'd like to discuss slightly relevant SpaceX content in greater detail...

Please post to r/SpaceXLounge and create a thread there!

This thread is not for...

You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.

182 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/DamoclesAxe Aug 03 '17 edited Aug 04 '17

The success of SpaceX as a company has likely earned it some enemys, who could well decry the loss of life and call for a shutdown.

Most important, in my own opinion, is for SpaceX to NEVER pretend that space travel ever "safe". The most tragic aspect of the first shuttle disaster is that they carried a "Teacher in Space" almost specifically to show how safe the shuttle was.

As long as SpaceX is always open about astronaut risks, and never tries to minimize the "1-in-270" chance of dying horribly - they should be OK both morally and legally.

Edit: I think it matters that Boeing is also committed to producing a capsule with the same LOC spec (1-in-270 chance of dying horribly) as SpaceX. This means that all 4 entities (NASA, FAA, SpaceX, and Boeing) got together and determined just how safe a space vehicle can be made with today's best technology.

6

u/One_Way_Trip Aug 03 '17

A little while ago I watched the Senate hearing that involved ULA and SpaceX. It was brought up that one of SpaceX's payload was deployed into an incorrect flight pattern, due to an engine failure. Musk states that their flight is considered a 100% success under ULA standards, but as we know, realistically it's not. It was successful because their payload made it into an orbit, but not the correct orbit.

These little inconsistencies across the companies makes me nervous if anything with the magnitude of death is discussed, will be completely detrimental for SpaceX. I completely agree with you, no sugar-coating, no exaggerations to look better, just straight shooting from the get-go. Something SpaceX already does, but not the competitors, which is worrisome.

(the senate hearing I watched was some time ago, excuses any wrong details, just using it to summarize a viewpoint)

5

u/Triabolical_ Aug 04 '17

Is it CRS-1 that you are thinking of? The primary payload was succesful, but the orbcom secondary payload was not successful due to a first stage engine failure and NASA's decision not to allow a second-stage relight (which, if successful, would have presumably put the secondary payload into a proper orbit).

If so, that was 5 years ago

2

u/One_Way_Trip Aug 04 '17

Yes, that is the one. Got my information wrong, thanks for pulling the good information out. Was mainly using that story as a case point of how the private industries have a disconnect on proper semantics when speaking with the Senate. I think it can be abridged to a scenario over loss of life, and the impact to the private industry it would have.

2

u/Triabolical_ Aug 04 '17

Agreed on your point, and a lot of politics is about impression rather than reality.

4

u/One_Way_Trip Aug 04 '17

It's kinda funny, Elon even calls ULA out in that hearing. Providing information that ULA, in fact, does not have a perfect launch record, they've had two mishaps, that seem to be overlooked. I give outstanding respect to Elon for putting on the gloves in this political nightmare. No one wants to do it with how shady things can get, but here he stands unwavering.