So what are we to make of this? Is Odysseus a success or a failure?

Odysseus has less than a day left on the Moon before it freezes to death::So what are we to make of this? Is Odysseus a success or a failure?

  • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    7·
    9 months ago

    That might be the case right? Let’s say there a percentage chance that would have succeeded call it 10%

    Now your first attempt fails, maybe because of some miscalculation or lack of engineering precision

    Even if the older way more expensive version had a 100% success rate you’d probably still rather the cheaper version right?

    Also not sure how this is about capitalism, replace the above for material cost and it’s the same thing

    • 5C5C5CEnglish
      74·
      9 months ago

      And money is the only cost that matters, right? Let’s not be concerned about the material waste involved in the launch or the pollution that’s building up in outer space with each failure.

      This kind of business oriented mindset is why Boeing planes are falling out of the sky and dropping their bolts.

      Also the cost being cited for those early space programs involved an immense amount of breakthrough R&D which the newer programs ought to be benefiting from; there’s no reason to believe that a government program doing the same work as these private companies today would cost as much as they did in the early days. It’s not even a meaningful quantitative comparison in the first place.

      • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        So material waste can be directly tied to cost. If you’re trying to bring down cost then you’re going to try to reduce waste correct? That’s why there is so much work being done for reusable launch vehicles

        For space debris and pollution I don’t think we can squarely blame capitalism. Under a purely communist economy there’s no guarentee that anyone would care any more about it than currently And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

        As for it not being entirely comparable. Sure the government spent a lot of money on that early R&D. But do we think that if we banned companies from doing this kind of work that govt agencies like NASA would be necessarily more cost effective, cause less pollution, and less debris?

        • 5C5C5CEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          The overwhelming cost in these projects is always engineering salaries. These companies are making the calculation that they can throw shit (rockets) at the wall (into space) carelessly to save money by wasting more material to avoid paying the salaries of people that could think through the design more carefully and come up with something that will have a reasonable probability of working the first time.

          And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

          Add this to the insurmountable pile of things we should theoretically regulate but never will because of regulatory capture.

          • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            Do you have any data to back that up? It would be quite interesting

            I don’t think regulation is impossible to achieve, look at the EU. And what I am fairly sure of is you have better odds of passing regulation than replacing capitalism entirely