SpaceX to Fly Passengers On Private Trip Around the Moon in 2018

[Cripplecreek]

To be fair, SpaceX has some really cool ideas and capabilities.  It's the way they run their business that I don't like.  They claim lower cost because they cut corners on things like testing and QA, and it's cost them a few rockets.  As part of that, their hiring practices are designed to avoid the "taint" of institutional knowledge.

That's the way I see it. Space X needs a small board of people who can overrule Musk with even a single dissenting vote.

At NASA there are dozens of people who have the veto authority that leads to aborting a launch. Grissom, White, and Chaffee had concerns about Apollo 1 but didn't have the authority to do anything but destroy their own careers. (And Grissom was already on thin ice with NASA)

This little nervous joke of theirs to Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea proved tragically that they were correct.



It isn't that we don't trust you, Joe, but this time we've decided to go over your head.

Joe Shea did have concerns about the pure oxygen environment and recommended changes like removing velcro tabs from the capsule and running the test in an unpressurized cabin. Unfortunately he didn't supervise the changes being made.

[Just_Victor]

To be fair, SpaceX has some really cool ideas and capabilities.  It's the way they run their business that I don't like.  They claim lower cost because they cut corners on things like testing and QA, and it's cost them a few rockets.  As part of that, their hiring practices are designed to avoid the "taint" of institutional knowledge.

If the Falcon 9 actually operates as advertised, it represents an order of magnitude launch cost reduction, from ~$10,000/lb to under $1,000/lb.

Big IF.....

[r9etb]

If the Falcon 9 actually operates as advertised, it represents an order of magnitude launch cost reduction, from ~$10,000/lb to under $1,000/lb.

Big IF.....

Well.... the hardware costs are not really any different from any other rocket.  Precision and reliability cost a lot, especially when the items in question are not mass-produced.  The real cost differential between SpaceX and ULA has more to do with people and processes.

The idea of reducing launch costs by an order of magnitude seems a bit..... rosy.

[Cyber Liberty]

Pow! Alice; straight to the Moon!

@Oceander

[Just_Victor]

Well.... the hardware costs are not really any different from any other rocket.  Precision and reliability cost a lot, especially when the items in question are not mass-produced.  The real cost differential between SpaceX and ULA has more to do with people and processes.

The idea of reducing launch costs by an order of magnitude seems a bit..... rosy.

You don't want to know how much of my work goes into quality and configuration control.  You'll want to vomit.

[r9etb]

You don't want to know how much of my work goes into quality and configuration control.  You'll want to vomit.

It can be overdone.... and it can be underdone.

If you look at SpaceX's failures, it's because of "underdone."

[Just_Victor]

It can be overdone.... and it can be underdone.

If you look at SpaceX's failures, it's because of "underdone."

Our government has chosen to try to create procesees that any idiot can perform.   We joke about the "idiot proof" process, and the inevitable government desire to find a better idiot.  But you see the same approach in TSA.  We're looking for objects, not terrorists, but a complete moron can rummage through your lugage looking for 4oz of liquid.  NASA has sadly slipped into the same line of thinking. Our processes can compensate for people who don't know what they're doing.  God forbid we should hire/fire on the basis of performance.

[thackney]

We joke about the "idiot proof" process, and the inevitable government desire to find a better idiot.

I keep the following on a wall in my office:

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

- Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless, 1992

[Cyber Liberty]

I keep the following on a wall in my office:

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

- Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless, 1992

Back when I worked in a production area of my company we were advised not to call it "fool-proofing" or "idiot-proofing" because that would be an insult to fools and idiots.  I asked them at the time why they were hiring all those foolish idiots? 

Oh, the "proper" thing to call it was "mistake-proofing," and the same rules about that being impossible to achieve still applied, so after that I knew I was working with a bunch of mistakes.

[Joe Wooten]

Seems like a few years back someone proposed a manned mission to orbit mars a few times then return to earth.

However it requires almost 2 years in space which is a problem. Every minute spent in space increases the likelihood of something going wrong. That's why I support spending research dollars on better, faster, non explosive propulsion. 24 hours to the moon seems a very reasonable goal to aspire to.

I've read that if we could have launched the Saturn V from orbit rather than from the ground the Apollo crews could have reached the moon in under 12 hours with half of that time spent slowing down enough to enter orbit.

If you launched the whole S5 stack from LEO, you could have put an entire pre-fab colony down on the moon. All one needed for the CSM-LEM stack was the third stage with a partial fuel load.

[Joe Wooten]

You don't want to know how much of my work goes into quality and configuration control.  You'll want to vomit.

Not me, I work in the nuke world. Costs for nuke QA make aerospace look like pikers.

[Joe Wooten]

Our government has chosen to try to create procesees that any idiot can perform.   We joke about the "idiot proof" process, and the inevitable government desire to find a better idiot.  But you see the same approach in TSA.  We're looking for objects, not terrorists, but a complete moron can rummage through your lugage looking for 4oz of liquid.  NASA has sadly slipped into the same line of thinking. Our processes can compensate for people who don't know what they're doing.  God forbid we should hire/fire on the basis of performance.

About 20 years ago the NRC wanted to do the same thing in nuclear. The rest of the fed gov was going through that fad. THANK GOD the industry pushed back on that. We used to write joke procedures on complying with NRC regulations on wiping your ass.