NASA Safety Culture & History

[scaesare]

We've had a bit of debate discussion in differing threads (primarily SLS) about the potential for there to be mgm't level decisions that put other priorities over safety, given NASA's track record.

The recent Ars article by Eric Berger talks about some of that...

 

[Electroman]

I am planning to read that article. Usually Eric Burger's articles are well researched and packed with content.

So would appreciate if you could post a few key points from that article and that would help those who do not have the time to read through that.

 

[scaesare]

In reading a related article. it refers to this chilling video of flight control during the STS-107 event:

 

[Grendal]

Great article. Sadly, I think it is human nature to get complacent over time. Space exploration, as we here understand, is incredibly dangerous. It takes huge amounts of energy to get a rocket into orbit. The more the payload, the more energy is needed. Coming back through our atmosphere at orbital speeds or more is equally dangerous. So it almost inevitable that something will go wrong somewhere. Lessons will be learned and they, hopefully, move forward. Ultimately it is much safer for astronauts than taking a ship across the ocean even one hundred years ago. Let us hope they continue to be diligent and do as much as possible to mitigate whatever issues arise. It will never be perfectly safe. And the one fact we know, is that humans make mistakes. Just drive a car on a daily basis and you know this to be true.

 

[Electroman]

We've had a bit of debate discussion in differing threads (primarily SLS) about the potential for there to be mgm't level decisions that put other priorities over safety, given NASA's track record.

The recent Ars article by Eric Berger talks about some of that...

The article traces the three disasters in NASA that humans lost lives - one Apollo and two Space Shuttle - and then advices to take the security aspects seriously and every concerning voice should be heard. "Don't be complacent" is the mantra.

This makes me wonder, if the near perfect record of SpaceX and the very high frequency of launches (and landings) will get SpaceX into a comfort zone and may have adverse effects. SpaceX will NOT be afforded the latitude that NASA gets, or Boeing/ULA might get. We will not hear the compromising tone that NASA gets that 'Space is hard, we need to be learn from this and move on and not find scape goats'.

The entire establishment and the media specifically which is desperate to finish Musk will come hard on him. "Twitter playboy kills American heroes" will be the headlines.

 

[scaesare]

The article traces the three disasters in NASA that humans lost lives - one Apollo and two Space Shuttle - and then advices to take the security aspects seriously and every concerning voice should be heard. "Don't be complacent" is the mantra.

This makes me wonder, if the near perfect record of SpaceX and the very high frequency of launches (and landings) will get SpaceX into a comfort zone and may have adverse effects. SpaceX will NOT be afforded the latitude that NASA gets, or Boeing/ULA might get. We will not hear the compromising tone that NASA gets that 'Space is hard, we need to be learn from this and move on and not find scape goats'.

The entire establishment and the media specifically which is desperate to finish Musk will come hard on him. "Twitter playboy kills American heroes" will be the headlines.

I think it tends be human nature when things reach a steady-state.... and SpaceX is made up of humans. Coprorate culture, the Elon Factor, and the current relentless pace of change might help counteract that right now... but those things will/may also diminish over time.

That pace of change thing may be it's own risk however... I can see a quickly implemented "thing" causing a problem (i.e. the recent unburnt fuel conflagration) for which there's some serious repercussions...

 

[scaesare]

And yet more concern about Artemis and the safety culture at NASA,