4 ms·

Something about this also makes me feel a bit, hmm, I guess "concerned". I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site

by sottol 4y ago

Something about this also makes me feel a bit, hmm, I guess "concerned". I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site looks very "min-viable" (at best). I hope this does not and will not extend to other parts of their designs.

allenrb 4y ago
They’re learning how to build this type of launch site at the same time they’re learning how to build this type of rocket. These guys are not clowns. Their Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever built. On top of successfully performing its launch duties, it has chalked up more than one hundred successful booster landings in a row. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that what you see today is going to be the unalterable future of space launch.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >"These guys are not clowns." Not sure who these guys are, but given that SpaceX top brass spends a good bit of their effort running schemes and cover so that Elon is bamboozled away from the actual work indicates that there is at least one clown there.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    It'd be great to explain what exactly you mean by that statement. SpaceX upper management and Elon are on great relations.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      It's been well documented that SpaceX upper brass spend their time bamboozling Elon away from the actual work that needs to be done, so he can't fuck it up. I have no idea what you are talking about w/r/t "relations"
      - mlindner 3y ago
        There's actually no documentation I've ever seen of this so I'm not sure why you're saying it's "well documented".
        freejazz 3y ago
        Several news reports based upon interviews with staff is exactly what documentation is, don't be obtuse.
nordsieck 4y ago
> I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site looks very "min-viable" (at best). If you're getting that impression by comparing it with SLS/Shuttle, the thing to keep in mind is that SpaceX gets a huge benefit by not using solids. SLS/Shuttle had to move a rocket where some of the parts were fully fueled, which means much greater weight. Additionally, solids can't really be "turned off", which means there are much greater safety requirements. This is apparent, not just in launch sites, but also with launch escape systems - Starliner needs a much more performant launch abort system than Crew Dragon for example. Of course, that doesn't affect some things like the water deluge system.

by sottol 4y ago

allenrb 4y ago

They’re learning how to build this type of launch site at the same time they’re learning how to build this type of rocket. These guys are not clowns. Their Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever built. On top of successfully performing its launch duties, it has chalked up more than one hundred successful booster landings in a row. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that what you see today is going to be the unalterable future of space launch.

freejazz 3y ago
>"These guys are not clowns." Not sure who these guys are, but given that SpaceX top brass spends a good bit of their effort running schemes and cover so that Elon is bamboozled away from the actual work indicates that there is at least one clown there.
- mlindner 3y ago
  It'd be great to explain what exactly you mean by that statement. SpaceX upper management and Elon are on great relations.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    It's been well documented that SpaceX upper brass spend their time bamboozling Elon away from the actual work that needs to be done, so he can't fuck it up. I have no idea what you are talking about w/r/t "relations"
    - mlindner 3y ago
      There's actually no documentation I've ever seen of this so I'm not sure why you're saying it's "well documented".
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Several news reports based upon interviews with staff is exactly what documentation is, don't be obtuse.

nordsieck 4y ago

> I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site looks very "min-viable" (at best). If you're getting that impression by comparing it with SLS/Shuttle, the thing to keep in mind is that SpaceX gets a huge benefit by not using solids. SLS/Shuttle had to move a rocket where some of the parts were fully fueled, which means much greater weight. Additionally, solids can't really be "turned off", which means there are much greater safety requirements. This is apparent, not just in launch sites, but also with launch escape systems - Starliner needs a much more performant launch abort system than Crew Dragon for example. Of course, that doesn't affect some things like the water deluge system.