An excellent example and contrast of what he is speaking of is the Comet/B707 development.

the problem is that a lot of people assume there is a lot of technology development to make commercial crew work. there are almost no “unknowns” in developing a space vehicle (or a rocket) other then how the technology picked will work, and its not hard to pick technology which is mature enough to have few issues.

The Comet had issues because the designers picked technology (most the square windows) that had not been adequately modeled in terms of stresses. Boeing in particular understood from other airplanes “Oval” windows.

I will be very surprised if in the next four to five years SpaceX loses a capsule (and crew) due to a technology issue…if they do it will be how the technology was assembed or used…the big changer in this is if they start reusing Dragons…and eventually the rocket then there might be lifetime issues. RGO

“Challenges of the Maturity Stage

â– Sales Volumes Peak: After the steady increase in sales during the Growth stage, the market starts to become saturated as there are fewer new customers. The majority of the consumers who are ever going to purchase the product have already done so.

â– Decreasing Market Share: Another characteristic of the Maturity stage is the large volume of manufacturers who are all competing for a share of the market. With this stage of the product life cycle often seeing the highest levels of competition, it becomes increasingly challenging for companies to maintain their market share.

â– Profits Start to Decrease: While this stage may be when the market as a whole makes the most profit, it is often the part of the product life cycle where a lot of manufacturers can start to see their profits decrease. Profits will have to be shared amongst all of the competitors in the market, and with sales likely to peak during this stage, any manufacturer that loses market share, and experiences a fall in sales, is likely to see a subsequent fall in profits. This decrease in profits could be compounded by the falling prices that are often seen when the sheer number of competitors forces some of them to try attracting more customers by competing on price.”

http://productlifecyclestages.com/product-life-cycle-stages/maturity/

“The specific topic is space systems, but the discussion here about safety advances can be bolstered one way or the other by simply considering any complex technology and systems of systems as analogous, to the degree they involve human safety.”

No, that is not the discussion. You keep avoiding the topic.

You originally said:

“The hidden assumption, the unsaid bias? That re-inventing development, manufacturing and operations is just too hard.”

Not only have you refused to provide any examples of why “it’s too hard”, but you have gone off on some other tangent.

Just thought you should know why you’re not making any headway on this…

There is safety and there is the reach of humans in space.
This can go four ways. A matrix of the level of safety vs. the level of human activity in space.

In a generation (I hope far, far less) we could know which of the 4 possibilities panned out, or more interestingly, why.

1. Safety advances and human activity in space advances. (My position, call it the Inseparable Scenario, proves true. We look back on Earth from afar and mourn some losses, but in context, safety has progressed steadily from the today’s lo-nine’s to the hi-nine’s).

2. Safety advances and human activity in space stagnates. (The Risk Aversion scenario about the bar for safety being too high proves true).

3. Safety stagnates and human activity in space advances. (The Oregon Trail scenario proves true, but this does not hold us back. Simberg is applauded as a visionary. We look back from Europa, and many off-world places, and ponder the human loss to get there in all those systems that are still just lo-nine systems).

4. Safety stagnates and human activity in space stagnates. (The Stagnation Scenario proves true. Failing to improve safety holds back the human activity in space).

Someone should put this whole thread in the memory hole and dig it out again in 10 years.

Time will tell.

No decline in safety or having to lower the bar there need occur. If it did, how would the variety of providers of access to space for humans have come about?

My asking for examples to the contrary is not to ask anyone else to do research, but merely to say that barring any good examples, and none being provided in this entire thread, no evidence is being provided that our expansion into space and growth outwards from Earth necessitates a stagnation or decline or lowering of the bar in any measures of safety.

Yep-you got it.