War in Israel

[sevenhelmet]

…so idiots not following well established procedures for safety are SpaceX’s fault? Makes total sense… or better yet, block off the entire airspace for a recovery operation. They made a cost-informed decision to operate at a range or facility safely. Sounds like PMRF couldn’t provide the necessary requirements for their operations.

Based on Brett’s post, PMRF did offer to provide the necessary services- SpaceX didn’t want to pay for appropriate range clearing efforts.

It’s not SpaceX’s fault that people violate (or just fail to read) NOTAMs and maritime alerts, but there is a level of due diligence that should be taken when you plan on something coming down in a particular area- particularly when operational history indicates someone will be there.

Being unwilling to take on that due diligence is absolutely their choice, and based on what I’ve seen, is true to SpaceX’s (and Elon’s) brand.

 

[Hotdogs]

Based on Brett’s post, PMRF did offer to provide the necessary services- SpaceX didn’t want to pay for appropriate range clearing efforts.

It’s not SpaceX’s fault that people violate (or just fail to read) NOTAMs and maritime alerts, but there is a level of due diligence that should be taken when you plan on something coming down in a particular area- particularly when your operational history indicates someone will be there.

Being unwilling to take on that due diligence is absolutely their choice, and based on what I’ve seen, is true to SpaceX’s (and Elon’s) brand.

Got it. It’s far cry from implying SpaceX has a poor safety culture and making a cost informed decision. Launches for SpaceX routinely occur off of Vandenberg will little fan fare about safety issues. If I had the option of launching at place A vs Place B with significantly lower cost because of range clearance issues, then I would’ve made the same decision.

 

[Brett327]

Maybe I'm not explaining this in the right way...

…so idiots not following well established procedures for safety are SpaceX’s fault?

Yes, particularly when there's a well established method of risk reduction available. What do you think would happen if the Navy took out a Chinese cargo ship during a BMD test? "They should have read the NOTMAR" isn't going to cut it. There would be absolute hell to pay. It's an unnecessary risk.

block off the entire airspace for a recovery operation.

Yes, that's precisely what we do. The FAA reroutes all of the transpacific traffic around us for every op we conduct. They will also do this for the Starship flight.

Sounds like PMRF couldn’t provide the necessary requirements for their operations.

Their requirements are precision tracking of their vehicle and telemetry data collection, which we're still doing. Our requirements for splashing their vehicle on our range are compliance with RCC-321 safety standards. They elected to move their splash point outside of our range where they will perform minimal range clearance at an elevated risk to non-participants. So, yes, they made a cost informed decision to be less safe, which is the whole point.

 

[Swanee]

Texting with a rocket scientist friend about their thoughts on SpaceX. They're of Orbital/ATK/Northrop Grumman pedigree- was on the Antares rocket from development until just a couple of years ago (to include being on the console for the one that exploded at Wallops and caused a lot of damage). Now a program director.

They Basically say that their safety program is lacking at best, a complete joke at worst, and their cultural attitude is that they will do what they want, when they want, and if no one else wants to play ball they'll go somewhere that will. They're willing to accept risks that no one else is their right mind would.

Reference the latest damage they did to the launch pad in April because they didn't want to protect it as has been standard practice since the 1950s. She says the only people who think the April Starship launch was a success are Elon Musk and anyone who will believe him. They damaged the launch pad, engines didn't work, and they had to FTS the thing. Even if they planned on FTSing the rocket, that is a really unsafe way to go about business. One should know where their rocket is going well before they put it on the pad.

Or launching a Tesla into space- one more piece of junk that we have to track as it is in an orbit around the sun sometimes near Mars, sometimes near Earth, sometimes outside and inside of both as it gravity slingshots around the solar system.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Texting with a rocket scientist friend about their thoughts on SpaceX. They're of Orbital/ATK/Northrop Grumman pedigree- was on the Antares rocket from development until just a couple of years ago (to include being on the console for the one that exploded at Wallops and caused a lot of damage). Now a program director.

They Basically say that their safety program is lacking at best, a complete joke at worst, and their cultural attitude is that they will do what they want, when they want, and if no one else wants to play ball they'll go somewhere that will. They're willing to accept risks that no one else is their right mind would.

Reference the latest damage they did to the launch pad in April because they didn't want to protect it as has been standard practice since the 1950s. She says the only people who think the April Starship launch was a success are Elon Musk and anyone who will believe him. They damaged the launch pad, engines didn't work, and they had to FTS the thing. Even if they planned on FTSing the rocket, that is a really unsafe way to go about business. One should know where their rocket is going well before they put it on the pad.

Or launching a Tesla into space- one more piece of junk that we have to track as it is in an orbit around the sun sometimes near Mars, sometimes near Earth, sometimes outside and inside of both as it gravity slingshots around the solar system.

100%. To say nothing of what they’re doing to low earth orbit.

Just hearing the cheers from the control room after the destruction of the latest Starship launch vehicle and having observed the obvious multiple engine failures during ascent was proof of their poor attitude toward flight safety.

For those not in flight test: if you don’t expect to make it off the pad, you aren’t ready to launch… unless you’re Space X, where the safety attitude is “fuck it”.

I think it’s only a matter of time until they have an unrecoverable failure, and their fall from public adulation will be nothing short of spectacular. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Mirage]

As interesting as it is comparing all these random anecdotes to the hard evidence that Space X has the best safety record of any space agency or company ever despite revolutionizing the industry in ways that required extremely hazardous testing (landing rockets autonomously), I think we managed to trade a detour discussing Biden for a detour discussing Musk..

 

[Hotdogs]

Maybe I'm not explaining this in the right way...

Yes, particularly when there's a well established method of risk reduction available. What do you think would happen if the Navy took out a Chinese cargo ship during a BMD test? "They should have read the NOTMAR" isn't going to cut it. There would be absolute hell to pay. It's an unnecessary risk.

Yes, that's precisely what we do. The FAA reroutes all of the transpacific traffic around us for every op we conduct. They will also do this for the Starship flight.

Their requirements are precision tracking of their vehicle and telemetry data collection, which we're still doing. Our requirements for splashing their vehicle on our range are compliance with RCC-321 safety standards. They elected to move their splash point outside of our range where they will perform minimal range clearance at an elevated risk to non-participants. So, yes, they made a cost informed decision to be less safe, which is the whole point.

Love a good joust with you, Brett. The .001% chance a piece of debris hits a merchant vessel or aircraft (which to my knowledge hasn’t occurred) was above’s PMRF safety threshold. Just wanted to make sure we’re speaking the same language.

The correct answer should’ve been, in the astronomically low chance it does happen, is “fuck off, we told you, Chinese AGI.” C'est la vie.

Texting with a rocket scientist friend about their thoughts on SpaceX. They're of Orbital/ATK/Northrop Grumman pedigree- was on the Antares rocket from development until just a couple of years ago (to include being on the console for the one that exploded at Wallops and caused a lot of damage). Now a program director.

They Basically say that their safety program is lacking at best, a complete joke at worst, and their cultural attitude is that they will do what they want, when they want, and if no one else wants to play ball they'll go somewhere that will. They're willing to accept risks that no one else is their right mind would.

Reference the latest damage they did to the launch pad in April because they didn't want to protect it as has been standard practice since the 1950s. She says the only people who think the April Starship launch was a success are Elon Musk and anyone who will believe him. They damaged the launch pad, engines didn't work, and they had to FTS the thing. Even if they planned on FTSing the rocket, that is a really unsafe way to go about business. One should know where their rocket is going well before they put it on the pad.

Or launching a Tesla into space- one more piece of junk that we have to track as it is in an orbit around the sun sometimes near Mars, sometimes near Earth, sometimes outside and inside of both as it gravity slingshots around the solar system.

A much better, and more elaborate example of why SpaceX’s safety culture may suck.

 

[Brett327]

The .001% chance a piece of debris hits a merchant vessel or aircraft (which to my knowledge hasn’t occurred) was above’s PMRF safety threshold. Just wanted to make sure we’re speaking the same language.

Yes

C'est la vie.

No, but I guess Marines are gonna Marine.

 

[Random8145]

100%. To say nothing of what they’re doing to low earth orbit.

Just hearing the cheers from the control room after the destruction of the latest Starship launch vehicle and having observed the obvious multiple engine failures during ascent was proof of their poor attitude toward flight safety.

The cheers were likely because they knew the rocket would blow, as it is the largest, most powerful rocket ever launched. The goal is to learn from the launch so they can figure out what went wrong and do better next time. That is part of their modus operandi.

For those not in flight test: if you don’t expect to make it off the pad, you aren’t ready to launch… unless you’re Space X, where the safety attitude is “fuck it”.

That isn't SpaceX's attitude. SpaceX works as best they can to make sure a rocket won't blow up on launch. I remember reading of one rocket launch where they cancelled it one second before firing the engines because of something that was wrong. The Starship is the largest, most powerful rocket ever built. There is only so much they can work out theoretically vs actually launching the thing. For new rocket designs, what they do is launch, if/when the rocket blows up, they use what they learned to fix the issues, rinse and repeat.

Historically, if your rocket blew up, it was considered a major embarrassment. With SpaceX, it is just part of the development process, because that is the only real way to learn what works and what doesn't. With an old space company, they'd take forever to launch, still blow up, then take forever to relaunch.

The Air Force has given SpaceX a contract for development of a logistics rocket.

 

[Brett327]

I love how this guy nonchalantly explains flight test to an actual test pilot.

 

[Random8145]

I love how this guy nonchalantly explains flight test to an actual test pilot.

Nope, I'm explaining some aspects of SpaceX's culture and how they operate. Also, test piloting is not the same as launching rockets.

 

[Brett327]

Nope, I'm explaining some aspects of SpaceX's culture and how they operate. Also, test piloting is not the same as launching rockets.

Thanks for clarifying. ?

 

[Random8145]

Thanks for clarifying. ?

So then what's your point? We're talking about launching rockets, not test piloting aircraft. What sevenhelmet sees as defects to SpaceX are actually features of what has made it so successful. I am not saying SpaceX is without criticism (and I am in no way qualified on the safety issues you yourself brought up), but that the rocket blew up and that there was cheering are not examples of a lack of safety.

 

[Brett327]

So then what's your point? We're talking about launching rockets, not test piloting aircraft. What sevenhelmet sees as defects to SpaceX are actually features of what has made it so successful. I am not saying SpaceX is without criticism (and I am in no way qualified on the safety issues you yourself brought up), but that the rocket blew up and that there was cheering are not examples of a lack of safety.

What do you do for a living?

 

[Random8145]

What do you do for a living?

Machinist