In article , Rand Simberg
wrote:

I've been really depressed for the last week as a result of the
failure of the SpaceX launch attempt. It was a major blow and
disappointment not just to SpaceX, but to the whole notion of private
space. I've gone through a lot of soul searching, and am starting to
question everything I thought I believed about the best way to open up
the new frontier.

The way to succeed is to have systems that are not so brittle that a
single failure causes total destruction.

And that's what SpaceX has. Elon Musk has said that he can get through
two failures and still do another try.

At $100M invested, blowing up a few $6.7M rockets is a lot cheaper than
spending a few years drawing viewgraphs instead.

I've come to realize that we do in fact have launch systems that work,
most of the time, even if they're expensive.

We have launch system systems that work to the extent that a new launch
system has about even odds of blowing up before its first success. (We
could probably improve the launch system system to generate better
launch systems, but that would require a launch system system system.)

We have a space station,
if we could just muster up the gumption to finish it, and start to
turn it to the useful ends for which it was intended.

It has done pretty well in its primary intention as a foreign aid
vehicle.

Shuttle is
risky, but any new frontier is risky. We need to work hard to continue
to minimize the risk of losing our priceless astronauts, even if we
don't fly it for another three years.

How many priceless astronauts have to die of old age or in training
accidents while being valueless as astronauts because launches are shut
down for three years?

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)