undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavmich2y ago0 comments

I'd consider development of Crew Dragon to be rather fast - because, in the condition of a private development, it wasn't done before. Comparing to other spacecraft developments, in late 1950-s there was a race, USA vs. USSR, to put a man in space "soonest", and it took Soviets ~3.5 years from the launch of the Sputnik to send Gagarin to orbit. So, just a few short years... and a large government backing.

Still, given that Crew Dragon was developed by a private company and is quite modern judging by performance, I think it's a good result.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

dylan6042y ago· 1 in thread

Compare the budget of SpaceX to NASA's up to and through Mercury. NASA's experience was one of something never having been done before compared to the experience of SpaceX seeing many others doing it just needing to tweak the formula to make it affordable. Also, without NASA's burden of being a government pork/jobs program rather than being a streamlined process

avmichOP2y ago

You may underestimate the complexities and pace of development at SpaceX. And it can similarly be said that NASA's Mercury program was built on the shoulders of previous achievements in parachutes, heat shield, control etc. SpaceX does use the experience gained in the industry over half a century with a lot of efforts, but that doesn't mean they don't push the progress with their own work.

bryananderson2y ago· 1 in thread

I think the difference between the “private” development of Dragon and the “government” development of Mercury is exaggerated.

Like Dragon, the Mercury capsule was (mostly) designed and (entirely) built by a private contractor, McDonnell Aircraft.

Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything.

There are some important differences in the contracting models of the two programs, but a lot of the “private”/“commercial” framing of the ISS crew/cargo programs is just leftover vibes from the 2000s when ”harnessing the dynamic private sector” was the way to frame a new program that you wanted to get funded.

avmichOP2y ago

> Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything.

I think that's not a contradiction to the Dragon being designed by a private company in a different, organizationally, way than Mercury was designed by a private company.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

dylan6042y ago· 1 in thread

avmichOP2y ago

bryananderson2y ago· 1 in thread

I think the difference between the “private” development of Dragon and the “government” development of Mercury is exaggerated.

Like Dragon, the Mercury capsule was (mostly) designed and (entirely) built by a private contractor, McDonnell Aircraft.

avmichOP2y ago

I think that's not a contradiction to the Dragon being designed by a private company in a different, organizationally, way than Mercury was designed by a private company.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse