Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can ask the Chinese who live in the fallout pattern near their space facilities how great it is to ave a relaxed safety culture in that regard.
China's government embraces callous disregard for human life with a passion. There's a big difference between that and pushing paper around for no reason.
If something unexpected had happened with SN8 or SN9 (didn't fly where it supposed to, missed its landing spot by a wide margin, was carrying far more fuel than it should have) it would make sense to review spaceX's procedures to see if they did something wrong, or if their procedures are missing something important.
But what went wrong with either launch from a procedural point of view? As far as I can tell, nothing. Reviewing their "safety culture" when nothing unexpected happens is a bureaucratic waste of time that adds no value.
But what went wrong with either launch from a procedural point of view? As far as I can tell, nothing. Reviewing their "safety culture" when nothing unexpected happens is a bureaucratic waste of time that adds no value.
Sorry if I sound a bit over-emphatic, but this is a subject close to my heart: Normalization of deviance. It's the incredibly human tendency to skip a safety step and then, when nothing bad happens, internalize that it was a good decision to skip it. Not in so many words or as a deliberate decision, it just sort of happens. Saves time, makes things go smoother, just makes sense.
And the thing is, it can go well for months, years. Each time, it reinforces the idea that the skipped step is just some bureaucratic nonsense. It really is a culture thing, and if it's allowed to set in, eventually people get hurt or die. Admittedly I don't go to space, but I do crew on sailing ships. And I know of one ship arguably lost to a safety culture of "nothing unexpected has happened so far, we must be doing it right".
The FAA had it right, as far as I'm concerned. If you skip one step, what other shortcuts might you be taking?
It's the incredibly human tendency to skip a safety step and then, when nothing bad happens, internalize that it was a good decision to skip it.
But you nailed it with this statement. Suppose SN8/9 had landed without incident. Would the FAA have done a review of their "safety culture?" No, because they landed without incident. That doesn't mean all procedures were followed and no important procedures are missing. And this will be true when starships are being landed routinely without incident.
So the FAA is not proactively ensuring the right procedures are implemented and followed. If this were the case they would do a review after every flight, whether it was successful or not. And that would be true of airplanes as well as rockets. They're doing a review because that's what their own procedures say they should do - perform a review when a flying vehicle doesn't land as expected, whether there's any rationale or value in it or not. And what I'm saying is, at this stage of development, unless something is known to be amiss, there's no value in it.
The FAA had it right, as far as I'm concerned. If you skip one step, what other shortcuts might you be taking?
They didn't skip a step. They argued that the step didn't apply. If the harbormaster says you can't depart because you don't have enough fuel to cross the Atlantic on your engines alone, do you consider it "skipping a step" to cast off anyway? They're trying to apply the wrong kind of standards to your boat.
My base argument is similar to that of other advocates of space: The FAA has it wrong from the ground up. They long-since did away with their regulatory structure that can handle experimenters and innovators and tried to shoehorn them into a slacker culture of rubber-stamping legacy big company work without even bothering to check if it's safe.
That gives us hundreds of humans dying in unexpected 737 Max crashes while grounding Starships because we know they will probably crash and put scorch marks on some empty pavement.
They didn't skip a step. They argued that the step didn't apply. If the harbormaster says you can't depart because you don't have enough fuel to cross the Atlantic on your engines alone, do you consider it "skipping a step" to cast off anyway? They're trying to apply the wrong kind of standards to your boat.
Harbormasters don't have that sort of authority, but I see where you're coming from. The thing is, as anyone operating under an authority like the FAA or the USCG/NTSB will tell you - the operator does not get to make the distinction whether it applies or not. Because while most are professional and conscientious, some won't be. Worse, some will be honestly convinced that they are as safe or safer, not knowing what they don't know. People die from that. There's no "except if you really know your stuff" exemption from the rules. And that's annoying and sometimes maddening when you're a borderline case, but the alternative is worse.
Quote:
My base argument is similar to that of other advocates of space: The FAA has it wrong from the ground up. They long-since did away with their regulatory structure that can handle experimenters and innovators and tried to shoehorn them into a slacker culture of rubber-stamping legacy big company work without even bothering to check if it's safe.
I'm not saying the FAA is great - as a matter of fact, there are serious issues with their buddy-buddy relationship with Boeing. I am saying that you fight this sort of thing before you take off or cast off. And if you're not OK with jumping though the occasional bureaucratic hoop, then it's fair to ask what other tasks aren't being carried out.
Harbormasters don't have that sort of authority, but I see where you're coming from. The thing is, as anyone operating under an authority like the FAA or the USCG/NTSB will tell you - the operator does not get to make the distinction whether it applies or not. Because while most are professional and conscientious, some won't be. Worse, some will be honestly convinced that they are as safe or safer, not knowing what they don't know. People die from that. There's no "except if you really know your stuff" exemption from the rules. And that's annoying and sometimes maddening when you're a borderline case, but the alternative is worse.
I'm not saying the FAA is great - as a matter of fact, there are serious issues with their buddy-buddy relationship with Boeing. I am saying that you fight this sort of thing before you take off or cast off. And if you're not OK with jumping though the occasional bureaucratic hoop, then it's fair to ask what other tasks aren't being carried out.
I agree with you. SpaceX should not have launched without FAA authorization. I wouldn't call them blameless. They certainly have a reckless culture that will eventually cause unintended destruction and possibly death.
At the same time, there is a structural problem with the FAA that needs to be rectified. The FAA isn't going to prevent accidents at/with SpaceX (or Boeing) /products, as we have seen. It's simply standing in the way of progress. Or it was, at least.
I would bet the FAA has an 'agenda' in trying to slow this march towards space!
( and I would bet it has to do with the Defense Dept/Pentagon)
Nope. The pentagon loves SpaceX. More accurately, they are salivating at the thought of how many more shiny new F35s they can buy now that spy and milcom satellites can launch for Falcon Heavy pennies on the Delta IV dollar.
I also imagine they're excited at the idea of piggybacking milcom on starlink and negating the billions China and Russia have spent on asat tech. How you gonna shoot down 14,000 satellites in a surprise attack. I mean, you might be able to deny space to everyone with a bunch of nukes or debris clouds, but the prospect of knocking out regional us comms with a couple of missiles hitting geo birds has gone buhbye.
It's a couple of pork barrel congressmen that have their knickers in a twist over SpaceX killing off the SLS jobs program.
Some of them. Some Air Force procurement people have been spending years directing money to the right companies with the expectation of a job at ULA, or Boeing, or Lockheed. And they're not happy with their plans being disturbed. Had a neighbor who was in that crowd. They did not like SpaceX upsetting the apple cart at all. There was a system, dammit - buy launches with ULA, retire as Lt. Col., get job with Lockheed Martin, play golf.
Some of them. Some Air Force procurement people have been spending years directing money to the right companies with the expectation of a job at ULA, or Boeing, or Lockheed. And they're not happy with their plans being disturbed. Had a neighbor who was in that crowd. They did not like SpaceX upsetting the apple cart at all. There was a system, dammit - buy launches with ULA, retire as Lt. Col., get job with Lockheed Martin, play golf.
that's probably part of the problem of why we don't have lunar and martian colonies by now
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
