-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SpaceX F9 - Transporter 2 - SLC-40
- Thread starter Grendal
- Start date
Based on what? You can tighten up rules and introduce new technology without compromising safety. In fact SpaceX has enhanced range safety with their modifications.
And example SpaceX does multiple times more launches and construction and testing than ULA. And still ULA and SpaceX have have same number of OSHA violation = two(2).
(Also ULA seems to have "kickbacks and bribery" Penalty of $100,000 from USAO U.S. Attorney's Office ?)
(Also ULA seems to have "kickbacks and bribery" Penalty of $100,000 from USAO U.S. Attorney's Office ?)
Actually, it's pretty well demonstrated that when regulations/requirements become overly broad and stringent it actually compromises safety. At some point requirements become so onerous for so many things, that the ability to reasonably comply with them all while still prioritizing the most significant ones becomes increasingly difficult, while making any sort of meaningful progress.
A good individual example: Computer/network password requirements became increasingly more complex and difficult in the name of security. While some basic requirements are reasonable and aren't overly difficult to comply with (must be > 4 characters, can't be same as user name, etc..,) at some point increasing password length/complexity became less secure, as the passwords became so difficult for a human to manage, that they simply wrote them down on post-it notes. Or work productivity was impacted.
I think this sort of government regulation is similar: when there are so many safety requirements covering even the remotest of scenarios, you increase the likelihood of the more significant risks getting lost in the noise. Or you end up with a bureaucratic company that spends more time filing reports nobody reads then actually building Mars rockets,,,
most of the saftey rules we have came after some disaster.
trying compare password storage to launching rockets is like pissing into the wind, it makes me wet.
you are entitled to your opinion. When a company says “we need to get rid of the saftey rules” you can safely say saftey isnt their first priority.
Glad my posts get you excited.
Thanks for allowing me an opinion... very magnanimous of you.
Unless you are making the claim that SpaceX is recommending scrapping all safety rules (but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't that obtuse), then it appears that you don't allow for the possibility that there may be any existing safety rules at all that are overly broad, or simply not useful or effective any longer. Interesting.
I’m not and I’m. This isn’t the first time Elon has demanded we change safety rules for his rockets. Remember him complaining about the FAA being to slow to issue him a permit for starship?
Peraton Supports Successful Launch of Space Development Agency Satellites on SpaceX Mission
/PRNewswire/ -- Two Space Development Agency (SDA) prototype satellites are now in orbit as a result of Peraton's work to secure rideshare space on the SpaceX...
www.prnewswire.com
"Helsinki, FINLAND – July 1, 2021 – ICEYE, the global leader in persistent monitoring with radar satellite imaging, announces today the successful launch of four ICEYE SAR satellites. They were launched into orbit on a SpaceX’s Falcon 9 smallsat rideshare mission via EXOLAUNCH. Three satellites of the latest technology generation will be added to the ICEYE constellation after a commissioning phase. The fourth satellite of this launch will be operated as a demonstration mission for the company’s next-generation spacecraft. With this launch, ICEYE has successfully brought 14 satellites into orbit, including both commercial and dedicated customer missions."
www.iceye.com
ICEYE's Four New Satellites improve Persistent Monitoring Capabilities
This launch from SpaceX included three satellites intended for customer access and a next-generation demonstrator spacecraft.
Great post. I will give you another example. There is an audit/security requirement at the place I work that source IP address of the machine of an employee accessing (through a browser or API) any sensitive document is logged. Now this made a lot of sense when the user and the document system were all on-prem with intranet IP addresses (10.*), and IP addresses were pretty much static.. But now with all things in cloud, the source IP address makes no sense at all, and cannot be carried over to the cloud provider for logging. But security kept insisting we need to find a way to do it, even though we tried to explain to them in this cloud world, IP addresses are fungible, fleeting and transient, irrelevant and is lost when they go over a reverse proxy server.
What is complaining about a slow process to do with safety?
I would like to better understand the trajectory as seen in video. The video starts with F9 at close to 45 degree (or even less) attitude although I would expect it would be close to vertical (90 degrees). It seems to me it still has an enormous horizontal velocity so close to ground, when it should have lost all horizontal component once it hit the atmosphere right after reentry burn. The trajectory as I have seen in many graphs vs. this video doesn't seem to match..
They were certifying it for flight, which includes a saftey analysis. Elon wanted to rush through it.
There is a difference between a careless company and a company that doesn’t put safety first. Clearly SpaceX is a company that puts safety no higher than third.
Well, you are enrolled to your opinion... but your continued assertion of such doesn't make it so.
There are two reasons for that: First stage's trajectory is pointing off shore, and only after successful landing burn start trajectory is changed to the landing pad. S1 also don't fly exactly where aft end is pointing, rocket body is forced to fly in angle with the grid fins for maximizing aero drag and minimizing needed landing fuel.
