• Johanno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -1818 days ago

    Another one.

    I mean I am not against rocket research, but isn’t there another way without destroying several millions worth if equipment?

    • @pipe01
      link
      English
      3418 days ago

      There is, you can be billions over budget and years behind schedule like NASA

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2718 days ago

          My god, the fucking dumbasses on here.

          “Oh my god, Elon Musk’s companies make electric cars, therefore electric cars must be bad”.

          Great logic man! Yep, hardware rich development programs and fixed price government contracting must also be bad because SpaceX has used them to lower launch costs for NASA by orders of magnitude.

          Jesus fucking christ, the dumbass blind hate for SpaceX is fucking mind numbing.

          • FaceDeer
            link
            fedilink
            618 days ago

            Indeed, I’m surprised this dumb clickbait title didn’t literally include Elon Musk’s name like so many other “Elon Musk’s <Company Name> Does <Thing That’s Actually Normal But Sounds Bad>!” headlines.

            Yes, Elon Musk has some awful views and does some awful things. Doesn’t mean everything he does is therefore bad. Henry Ford was a colossal antisemite, as another example, and did some really weird and awful things to his employees. Unfortunately some of the same personal characteristics that can lead people to be innovative industrialists can often also lead to them being assholes.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      I mean to be fair I think they are probably the first (and maybe still the only?) company that tries to build rockets that can land back and be reused.

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        318 days ago

        There’s others that are trying, Blue Origin has their New Shepherd rocket that is able to land, but it’s a suborbital tourism vehicle that’s basically just a toy. They’re working on a partly-reusable orbital launcher that’s like a souped up Falcon 9 but it’s still in development. Several other smaller startups are working on smaller Falcon-9-like launchers with expendable second stages, and China is building a straight up carbon-copy of the Falcon 9 and Starship. But SpaceX is the leader in this field and currently the only one who’s actually successful. Everyone is following in their wake at the moment.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      This is literally the first one. There’s only been a single Starship explosion in the upper atmosphere.

      And no, that leads to spending decades of time going down paths and intricately designing and simulating every possible detail of a system, only to build them, have something unexpected happen, and then realize that the team never considered X effect in Y, Z, etc conditions, and then have to spend years redesigning everything. (Not to mention that at the end of all that we still had two Space Shuttles explode in the upper atmosphere, but with crews on board).

      Design it, build it, test it, and get immediate feedback on it, and then redesign it. One way or another, it almost always has to go through that cycle, and it’s a lot cheaper to do it upfront.

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        918 days ago

        Indeed. And Boeing is the main contractor for it so you can be sure it won’t suffer any mishaps.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        218 days ago

        That sounds so futuristic.

        As it’s NASA is it using technology decades more advanced than the competition?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          217 days ago

          Are you joking? Well the answer is no, no the SLS is about 40 years behind as far as technology goes. It’s basically a shuttle derived launch vehicle, the boosters are similar to the shuttle side boosters and it uses 4 slightly updated RS-25s (the space shuttle main engines) in the center stage.

          Except instead of getting with the times and attempting some reusability, it actually has less reusability than the shuttle had. They actually throw away all of those expensive high performance hydrolox engines on every launch.

        • Diplomjodler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          217 days ago

          Oh definitely. And an absolute steal at just 2.5 billion a pop.

        • @0x0
          link
          English
          118 days ago

          So is the moon according to Heinlein.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      017 days ago

      That’s literally exactly what spaceX is developing, rockets you don’t have to blow up every flight.

      Fully reusable rockets have never been done before, but they’re coming.