It's fake... how could the cameraman have survived this? :)
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I would trust this thing only if Elon goes on the first manned trip with it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
What if Elon flew on the fifth manned flight, then it's no longer trust worthy?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
It would be different after 4 successful tries with guinea pig plebians, wouldn't it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah just trying to figure out the logic in what you're saying, other than ofcourse trying to bash this somehow because Musk is involved.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
This is not about musk bashing, this shouldn't be required any longer tbh (according to him they should be on mars now after all).
This is simply not getting excited about something that in effect has a 25% success rate to date, and this may just be co-incidence, we shall see.
How many space shuttles were lost in testing more than 40 years ago?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"I would trust this thing only if Elon goes on the first manned trip with it."
So this just means not to get too excited? Maybe a little hard to deduct that meaning but ok.
"How many space shuttles were lost in testing more than 40 years ago?"
How many NASA executives flew on the first manned missions? Have any NASA executives flown on missions that didn't start out as astronauts?
SpaceX's approach to developing rockets is totally different to NASA's.
SpaceX expects to blow up many rockets due to they fast development cycle, while NASA tries to get it right on the first try.
If it's financially viable, then I think the SpaceX approach might be better. You get to test a lot more in real world conditions. NASA's stuff doesn't seem to be cheap even when they are using old refurbished parts.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"SpaceX expects to blow up many rockets due to they fast development cycle..."
IKR, that's why they are on a mission to mars right now. It makes one wonder how they then decide on their safety margins in the long run. I guess the Titan designers had a similar approach.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well they did that already with Falcon.
Blew up a bunch of rockets, almost went bankrupt because of it but eventually figured it out and got profitable and went on to manned missions.
Of course Starship is way harder. Seems kinda ridiculous even what they are trying, but good on them for trying.
I think they have to get approval from other entities even to proceed with manned flights, so it's not all on them. Also killing astronauts is bad for business so I'm sure they have quite a bit of incentive to keep it safe as possible.
Comments
(Old Spike)
It's fake... how could the cameraman have survived this? :)
(Old Spike)
I would trust this thing only if Elon goes on the first manned trip with it.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
What if Elon flew on the fifth manned flight, then it's no longer trust worthy?
(Old Spike)
It would be different after 4 successful tries with guinea pig plebians, wouldn't it.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah just trying to figure out the logic in what you're saying, other than ofcourse trying to bash this somehow because Musk is involved.
(Old Spike)
This is not about musk bashing, this shouldn't be required any longer tbh (according to him they should be on mars now after all).
This is simply not getting excited about something that in effect has a 25% success rate to date, and this may just be co-incidence, we shall see.
How many space shuttles were lost in testing more than 40 years ago?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"I would trust this thing only if Elon goes on the first manned trip with it."
So this just means not to get too excited? Maybe a little hard to deduct that meaning but ok.
"How many space shuttles were lost in testing more than 40 years ago?"
How many NASA executives flew on the first manned missions? Have any NASA executives flown on missions that didn't start out as astronauts?
SpaceX's approach to developing rockets is totally different to NASA's.
SpaceX expects to blow up many rockets due to they fast development cycle, while NASA tries to get it right on the first try.
If it's financially viable, then I think the SpaceX approach might be better. You get to test a lot more in real world conditions. NASA's stuff doesn't seem to be cheap even when they are using old refurbished parts.
(Old Spike)
"SpaceX expects to blow up many rockets due to they fast development cycle..."
IKR, that's why they are on a mission to mars right now. It makes one wonder how they then decide on their safety margins in the long run. I guess the Titan designers had a similar approach.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Well they did that already with Falcon.
Blew up a bunch of rockets, almost went bankrupt because of it but eventually figured it out and got profitable and went on to manned missions.
Of course Starship is way harder. Seems kinda ridiculous even what they are trying, but good on them for trying.
I think they have to get approval from other entities even to proceed with manned flights, so it's not all on them. Also killing astronauts is bad for business so I'm sure they have quite a bit of incentive to keep it safe as possible.