Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.policy    |    Discussions about space policy    |    106,651 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 105,156 of 106,651    |
|    Dean Markley to JF Mezei    |
|    Re: SpaceX and the FAA    |
|    04 Feb 21 04:26:59    |
      From: damarkley@gmail.com              On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 3:20:57 AM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:       > On 2021-02-03 13:49, Snidely wrote:        >        > >> My own thoughts: SpaceX needs to build a proper lauch pad where they can        > >> test engines for more than 1 second, in particular ability to relight.        > >        > > Did you forget McGregor?       > Did McGregor detect that the header tanks weren't sufficiently        > pressurized leading to SN8?        >        > Did McGregor detect whatever caused SN9 to also fail its landing because        > one engine failed to run ?        >        >        > Did the 1 second test firings at Bica Chica detect the header tank issue        > that led SN8 to its downfall? Did they detect whatecer caused SN9 to fail?        >        > It might be cheaper for SpaceX to spit out glorified steel grain silos        > than to build a proper launch pad but if the FAA puts a stop the cowboy        > "build, launch, watch how it explodes" iterative design, SpaceX will        > need to put a bit ore design and a bit less iterative.        >        > You'll note how SpaceX stopped testing SN7.2, and in hindsight, the FAA        > likely blocked the destructive test. So it is starting to impact        > SpaceX's ability to develiop in the "wild wild west" method. (and that        > test is a mild one, more akin to putting some mentos in a bottle of diet        > pepsi).              You seem to want SpaceX to fail. You have this technique of asking a lot of       questions, getting answers you don't like and then you post mild insults such       as "glorified grain silos"? Perhaps you ought to study (although I suspect       you already know) the        history of government run space exploration. In that you will find quite a       history of "build, launch, watch how it explodes". I don't see how anyone can       deny the remarkable progree SpaceX has made. Especially when compared to       cumbersome, red tape        inhibited government programs.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca