Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 153 posts

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#51

Post by [deleted] »

pfdietz wrote: post #41
ElFitz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?

[deleted]

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#52

Post by ryandrake »

tw04 wrote: post #49
tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

I don't think the negativity is directed at NASA so much as Boeing. They've made a business out of grifting, and this is just another example of it. Shelby is more concerned with staying in office than making advances in space, and it shows. That's not NASA's fault, they're trying to do the right thing IN SPITE of the political pressure to waste money in order for a politician to be able to claim he's "creating jobs"…

NASA probably could be as nimble as SpaceX if they didn’t have to rely on Congress, whose goal is not to build a successful rocket, but to spread the money funnel across the States. Imagine if SpaceX’s board suddenly said “the company’s goal is now not to get to Mars, but to employ as many people and contractors as possible in all 50 states!” You’d basically get NASA.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#53

Post by tailspin2019 »

pfdietz wrote: post #41
ElFitz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?

Waterfall got us to the moon. Agile will get us to Mars...

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#54

Post by Animats »

NASA forgot how to make rockets:

“Both NASA and contractor officials explained that nearly 50 years have passed since development of the last major space flight program—the Space Shuttle—and the learning curve for new development has been steep as many experienced engineers have retired or moved to other industries.”

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#55

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #53
pfdietz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?

Waterfall got us to the moon. Agile will get us to Mars...

'Daily standups on Mars' that would make an epic show.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#56

Post by sandworm101 »

Jabbles wrote: post #42
sandworm101 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you aren't going up. Rockets are massive tanks of explosives flying through the air at supersonic speeds. That person is there to protect the people on the ground. Launch escape systems will protect the crew, but given the energies involved, the crew is less important than the potential for killing hundreds on the ground, or potentially thousands onboard a cruise ship.

I hope it's actually 2 people like in nuclear missile silos. Is there any public information?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/spacex-falcon...

"CAPE CANAVERAL — Air Force safety officers sent commands to destroy SpaceX's failing Falcon 9 rocket after its launch from Cape Canaveral on Sunday morning, but long after a malfunction had already caused the rocket to break apart, officials confirmed Monday."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety

"Some launch systems use flight termination for range safety. In these systems the RSO can remotely command the vehicle to self-destruct to prevent the vehicle from traveling outside prescribed safety zone. This allows as-yet-unconsumed propellants to combust at altitude, rather than upon the vehicle reaching the ground.[1]"

"As of 2016, a total of 32 US orbital launch attempts have ended in an RSO destruct, the first being Vanguard TV-3BU in 1958 and the most recent being Cygnus CRS Orb-3 in 2014.[...] Some launch vehicles (for example, the Titan family) have included an automatic destruct system to activate in the event that the solid rocket motors or upper stages separate prematurely; this is separate from the standard RSO system which is activated by manual command."

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#57

Post by mumblemumble »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #53
pfdietz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?

Waterfall got us to the moon. Agile will get us to Mars...

Lore suggests that that's a misconception, born of the Agile myth that the only thing that existed before the invention of either XP or Scrum was waterfall.

The truth is perhaps more like this: agility got us to the moon, bureaucracy trapped us in low earth orbit, agility seems to be offering our best hope at getting back out of LEO again, including to Mars.

For example, see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240112230/Interview-Fro...

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#58

Post by maccam94 »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #47
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I love NASA and all they’ve done but 10 years of SLS without a launch makes me doubt this thing will ever get off the ground. With a new administration, I feel like we’re one setback away from the whole thing being cancelled.

> I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I do agree with this. I just took issue with the lede being “rocket test fails” as if that’s a bad thing. The underlying points are all valid, speed, cost etc but a failed test is not the thing to be focussing the argument on in my view.

SLS proponents have been claiming that all of the extra time and money spent on process and formal verification would lead to a rocket that works without having to do lots of trial-and-error like SpaceX. Heck, even the name of the test campaign, the "Green Run," kind of reflects this hubris and shows that NASA expected the tests to largely be a formality.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#59

Post by mumblemumble »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

My impression is that the big difference between NASA's human spaceflight program and SpaceX is that, where NASA has failures, SpaceX has stretch goals that weren't met.

This is an unfortunate consequence of any insufficiently iterative development process.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#60

Post by akira2501 »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

> Let’s not forget also that it’s NASA who have also drastically changed their strategy and have enabled private companies like SpaceX to shine through their partnerships.

That's because they're required to by law. There's an entire section of the United States Code that's dedicated to this.

Post reply on HN