Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- From: "Rüdiger Klaehn" <rudi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Mar 2006 13:29:46 -0800
I'm sad that Space-X failed on its first try, since the industryAgreed. And if the initial analysis turns out right and it was neither
desperately needs competition and new approaches. But a new rocket
design is almost guaranteed to fail in early flights; this is, I hope,
something that they anticipated happening. The question is how they are
going to deal with it. If they're set up right, they will deal with it
by learning whatever lessons need to be learned and keeping on.
the insulation nor the ablative chamber, then at least they will learn
something new.
This is the way real engineering works, and if they are as good as their pressIndeed.
releases say that they are, they are ready for it. It's a setback, but
it's an expected setback; it is, in fact, the badge of their
transistion into the real world.
They are now part of an exclusive club of orbital rocket companies that
actually got some hardware into the air. They have left behind the
world of powerpoint presentations and fancy 3d graphics once and for
all.
And if the decision makers at the NASA COTS program are sensible, this
incident will increase rather than decrease their chances of winning a
COTS contract.
.
- References:
- SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- From: Rüdiger Klaehn
- Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- From: Damon Hill
- Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- From: Rüdiger Klaehn
- Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- From: Geoffrey
- SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- Prev by Date: Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- Next by Date: Re: NASA Eyes Alternative to Shuttle Main Engine for Heavylift
- Previous by thread: Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- Next by thread: Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|