View Single Post
  #2  
Old October 5th 18, 08:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


SMEARX ?
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities
"Commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules," the
op-ed states.
ERIC BERGER - 10/4/2018, 8:00 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...mpaign-is-now-
smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.

Jeff


It's funny to read this as I'm right now in the middle of reading Rand
Simberg's book "Safe is not an option."
I've go a few qualms with it, but overall, I think he's right (and as my
recent blog post "Safety Third" points out) you can't be only "safety
first".
Safety First would have meant no Apollo 8. Heck might have mean Apollo 17
would have been the 1st and last lunar mission if you had built up
incrementally.

And as Richard Hagar arguing about the safety lessons learned from Apollo 1,
I simply have two words: Challenger and Columbia.
Rand makes a strong point that if we let NASA dictate what is "safe" we will
probably never get anywhere, and quite honestly, their track record isn't
nearly as great as people would like to make it out to be.

I'll admit the "load and go" gives me pause, but honestly, if you can't
trust the process in the first place, you've got a bigger issue. You should
have a process that's safe to fuel rockets, regardless of whether there are
astronauts on board or not.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/