by wlbragg » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:17 pm
Manned VS unmanned for one. Testing VS application for another.
I wouldn't even think about putting a person on this thing until it has a track record. How do you get that track record, re-supply? How do you get it for the for the "heavy"?
If we learn more from our mistakes than our successes and we have the money to afford to keep making mistakes until we get it right, then so long as a safety factor is in place until we reach that point, I see it as a learning curve. NASA has been doing this for how long and at what price? You think we would have the automobiles we have now days if NASA had been the only designer and entity that was working the industry? Is this perfect, no, is it going to get people killed, probably. Kind of the nature of the game I think. After all, this is rocket science.
I recall 3 astronauts burning up on the launchpad too, that statistically at that time probably made it look like the odds weren't to good and the risk extreme. They learned that lesson pretty quick and at a very high price.
I agree with you in principal though, both Shuttle accidents were avoidable. The data was there, but they were pressured and in a hurry.
It would be interesting to know the true nature and scale of these things in the Russian program, or any other program for all that matters.
Kansas and Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA, 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i7/GeForce RTX 2070/Max-Q