SpaceX Rocket...Explodes

[Marener]

He was always nuts, you just only think so when the pendulum swung.

Whether he was nuts or not, he was only violent after the right wing internet got to him.

 

[martybegan]

Whether he was nuts or not, he was only violent after the right wing internet got to him.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[hadit]

The risk I’m talking about is that we spend billions on a project that never works and never launches.

When NASA originally went to the moon, they used the lowest risk options at every decision point. That’s definitely not what Starship is.

Who's to say that this will never work and never launch? I don't buy that at all, and even if he is not successful, there is a wealth of data that will enable the next guy to avoid wasting time and energy on things that don't work.

 

[Marener]

Who's to say that this will never work and never launch? I don't buy that at all, and even if he is not successful, there is a wealth of data that will enable the next guy to avoid wasting time and energy on things that don't work.

I didn’t say it has no chance at working, it’s just a very risky plan and has a high likelihood of not working. Definitely higher likelihood than alternatives.

 

[hadit]

I didn’t say it has no chance at working, it’s just a very risky plan and has a high likelihood of not working. Definitely higher likelihood than alternatives.

Such as? I wasn't aware of other private American companies with a real chance of developing commercial space flight for paying customers.

 

[Marener]

Such as? I wasn't aware of other private American companies with a real chance of developing commercial space flight for paying customers.

There were other bids for the NASA contract to build a lander.

 

[hadit]

There were other bids for the NASA contract to build a lander.

We in no way know that the other companies would be doing a better job. Take your antipathy towards Musk dismantling a favored left-wing apparatus out of the equation and look at it dispassionately. We NEED people who are willing to take big risks like this in order to find the best solutions to big challenges. Space flight is complicated matter and risky. By all accounts, this launch exceeded expectations and provided a wealth of data for ensuring future attempts go further toward better, safer flights. It was not a failure, but a learning experience.

 

[Marener]

We in no way know that the other companies would be doing a better job. Take your antipathy towards Musk dismantling a favored left-wing apparatus out of the equation and look at it dispassionately. We NEED people who are willing to take big risks like this in order to find the best solutions to big challenges. Space flight is complicated matter and risky. By all accounts, this launch exceeded expectations and provided a wealth of data for ensuring future attempts go further toward better, safer flights. It was not a failure, but a learning experience.

I know for certainty that the other companies had much more reasonable and attainable designs that did not require the existence of massive rockets that are still currently under development.

Musk can take big risks if he wants, but if we want to spend our money to get to the moon, I prefer we do what has the most likelihood of succeeding. I think that's common sense. I'm tired of NASA flushing money down the toilet spending billions on projects that never produce a final product.

 

[hadit]

I know for certainty that the other companies had much more reasonable and attainable designs that did not require the existence of massive rockets that are still currently under development.

Reasonable and attainable designs?

1. Are you an engineer, qualified to make that determination?
2. Could not existing technology be made better, more efficient, more re-usable? That's kind of the point of development, after all. Obviously, Musk convinced NASA he had the best plan, and I don't recall seeing you in the meeting.

The point of all this is that we have a rare opportunity for the private sector to develop commercial space travel, and we have barely scratched the surface.

There were a lot of crashes and holes in the ground before the Wright Brothers' dream became a reality for anyone who wanted to fly across the country, and how many years was it from the first powered flight to landing on the moon? Not bloody many. Let the private sector put holes in the ground for a while and commercial space flight will be a reality as well.

Musk can take big risks if he wants, but if we want to spend our money to get to the moon, I prefer we do what has the most likelihood of succeeding. I think that's common sense. I'm tired of NASA flushing money down the toilet spending billions on projects that never produce a final product.

That's why they contract it out to private companies. Government is notorious for never-ending projects that build nothing and go nowhere. Give a billionaire a profit motive and see how fast things get done.

 

[Marener]

Reasonable and attainable designs?

1. Are you an engineer, qualified to make that determination?
2. Could not existing technology be made better, more efficient, more re-usable? That's kind of the point of development, after all. Obviously, Musk convinced NASA he had the best plan, and I don't recall seeing you in the meeting.

The point of all this is that we have a rare opportunity for the private sector to develop commercial space travel, and we have barely scratched the surface.

There were a lot of crashes and holes in the ground before the Wright Brothers' dream became a reality for anyone who wanted to fly across the country, and how many years was it from the first powered flight to landing on the moon? Not bloody many. Let the private sector put holes in the ground for a while and commercial space flight will be a reality as well.

That's why they contract it out to private companies. Government is notorious for never-ending projects that build nothing and go nowhere. Give a billionaire a profit motive and see how fast things get done.

I have common sense that the Starship lander is far riskier than more modest, smaller designs that utilize current launch vehicles rather than development of the largest most complicated booster ever attempted.

NASA didn't have much of a choice because Musk undercut everyone else due to his deep pockets and the lack of funding from Congress. It had much less to do with the plan and far more to do with the money.

 

[hadit]

I have common sense that the Starship lander is far riskier than more modest, smaller designs that utilize current launch vehicles rather than development of the largest most complicated booster ever attempted.

NASA didn't have much of a choice because Musk undercut everyone else due to his deep pockets and the lack of funding from Congress. It had much less to do with the plan and far more to do with the money.

So the additional spending is from Musk himself and is not taxpayer money. He's providing a valuable service, then, by generating a lot of data on spaceship design, so even if he fails, we're still ahead of the game because of the data. As I said before, we SHOULD be looking at new designs. If we stuck with the "modest, smaller designs", all the airplanes would still have propellers.

 

[Marener]

So the additional spending is from Musk himself and is not taxpayer money. He's providing a valuable service, then, by generating a lot of data on spaceship design, so even if he fails, we're still ahead of the game because of the data. As I said before, we SHOULD be looking at new designs. If we stuck with the "modest, smaller designs", all the airplanes would still have propellers.

Yes, the additional spending is from Musk, but it was money he was spending anyway to build his rocket. It sounds like a bargain right? Except the risk that we get NOTHING out of the process is quite high, so that needs to be considered. In actuality, we are subsidizing his rocket design, not the other way around.

No, the data from his tests is not helpful building the lander we should have been building. A smaller, modest design is the one that we can actually build to learn from. We aren't learning anything about landing on the moon from Musk's launch attempt.

 

[struth]

I know for certainty that the other companies had much more reasonable and attainable designs that did not require the existence of massive rockets that are still currently under development.

Musk can take big risks if he wants, but if we want to spend our money to get to the moon, I prefer we do what has the most likelihood of succeeding. I think that's common sense. I'm tired of NASA flushing money down the toilet spending billions on projects that never produce a final product.

if they other companies had better designs why hasn't the Xiden Admin gone to them and gotten out of this contract? Another failure by Xiden?

 

[Marener]

if they other companies had better designs why hasn't the Xiden Admin gone to them and gotten out of this contract? Another failure by Xiden?

Clearly you know nothing about contracts.

 

[struth]

Clearly you know nothing about contracts.

i know a lot about them…many are broken daily around the world

 

[Marener]

i know a lot about them…many are broken daily around the world

Right, because you're a trial lawyer, right?

 

[Kruska]

I couldn't give a shit about going to the moon or Mars.

Hmmm... psst.. - there are women with three boobs on Mars!

 

[struth]

Right, because you're a trial lawyer, right?

well one doesn’t have to have a JD to know that people get out of contracts daily around the world

additionally...the Contract was entered in 2022...by the Xiden admin..https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0

 

[hadit]

Yes, the additional spending is from Musk, but it was money he was spending anyway to build his rocket. It sounds like a bargain right? Except the risk that we get NOTHING out of the process is quite high, so that needs to be considered. In actuality, we are subsidizing his rocket design, not the other way around.

Going with a less well funded company would merely be entirely footing the bill for their design and development, and even greater risk of failure due to lack of funding.

No, the data from his tests is not helpful building the lander we should have been building. A smaller, modest design is the one that we can actually build to learn from. We aren't learning anything about landing on the moon from Musk's launch attempt.

I maintain that we don't know that for the simple reason that we would missing out on the opportunity to build better launch vehicles if we always went with already created designs. Like I said, somebody had to take big risks to build the jet engines that now routinely carry millions of passengers on a daily basis.

 

[Marener]

well one doesn’t have to have a JD to know that people get out of contracts daily around the world

Since you are a JD, tell us how people get out of contracts.