"David Spain" wrote in message ...

On 2019-12-27 12:01 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Not like NASA has EVER done that. Oh wait...

Jeff


Maybe it would have been best if Bridenstein hadn't been there at all.
Sometimes leaving things unsaid can be very helpful.

There is one item that Bridenstein pointed out during the post landing
presser I found interesting. And that is even with this anomaly a lot of
things got tested on this flight that would not have been tested otherwise,
including the ground crew response.

But yeah I think because of the 'general attitude' during that presser
there will be pressure put on NASA by Boeing to fly the next mission
crewed. I think, since this mission failed, there should be another with
the same criteria. Get it right first. No one here I believe actually
thinks SpaceX would have gotten a pass had this happened to them, right?

Incremental costs are a thing. This is tossing away an Atlas V each time.
Really noticeable now isn't it? I can remember back in the mid-2000's when
people didn't buy into reusable boosters and thought this cost would be a
wash between the systems.

Ayup, I suspect SpaceX looked at "cost of flying a used Falcon 9 and doing a
Max Q abort" vs. doing it all in simulation and spending time convincing
NASA our analysis is good enough and decided the incremental cost of the
former was cheaper and faster.



Not a consideration now? Just try and say it ain't so....

Dave

--
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/