@rochelimit@mado@spaceflight@sciguyspace You don't think the full risk-based analysis occurs here? Commercial and government customers and partners have always been closely involved with SpaceX development.
I recall SES talking up that the insurance people were really behind reusability, and the Air Force & FAA also followed the F9's Automatic Flight Termination System very closely. Hence they're able to launch to trajectories that were previously not allowed.
@rochelimit@mado@spaceflight@sciguyspace I would also recommend NASAs safety advisory panel reports from previous years. The contrast between how SpaceX investigated the CRS-7 anomaly, compared to how other companies are still tracking critical safety items is an example and was noted.
@spaceflight@rochelimit
The TF-1 finding just there was very clear: a design error where the manufacturer's recommendations for those specific conditions were not heeded. Industrial use not the same as aerospace use.
@rochelimit@spaceflight To some degree, but you don't get to 6 successful NASA missions with just techbros. That event was a heavy wake-up call and they learned a lot from NASA during that investigation, IIRC.
But what I was getting at was the positive side of the development methodology: it was very easy to investigate the issue and make changes. NASA, government and commercial customers respond to that, and other newspace companies are also benefiting from lessons learned and cultural change
Add comment