Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-23 13:33, Fred J. McCall wrote:

down. I think it's funny that NASA lets astronauts ride on Soyuz,
which relies on power at landing on dirt for them to survive, yet is
being obstructionist to safety certify Dragon V2 for fully powered
landings on dirt.


A rare instance where I agree with you.

But being devil's advocate: At the time NASA started to purchase seats
on Soyuz, it had already proven itself and it ability to land. Also,
they had no choice since Soyuz was also the escape pod in case of emergency.

And during post Columbia stand down and after permanent shutdown of
Shuttle, NASA had no choice either.


True, but doesn't address the issue. Why not let SpaceX prove powered
landing?


Higher (perceived) risk for returning payloads.


But most don't return payloads. Why obstruct those?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw