5 ms·
Even if this is true, it's going to get more and more difficult to explain away rocket explosions as succeeding the more decades we put between us and the dawn
by ravenstine 4y ago
Even if this is true, it's going to get more and more difficult to explain away rocket explosions as succeeding the more decades we put between us and the dawn of the Space Age. If SpaceX is still blowing up rockets in 2033, it's going to become a PR problem, especially as the MSM further turns its back on Musk.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThat doesn't make any sense for prototypes. It's been slightly fewer decades since we've been doing consumer software. Does anybody expect version 1 to be bug free?
- ravenstine 4y agoYou're thinking about this like an engineer rather than a PR consultant or a journalist looking to write a hit piece on Musk. Even now, it's not hard to ask the somewhat specious question of how we can be 70+ years into aerospace tech and we still need our rockets to blow up.
- simondotau 4y agoAs though hack journalists need actual reasons to write hit pieces about Musk. They’ll write them no matter what. The articles will generate plenty of clicks, they will have zero impact on anything that matters and they will change nobody’s mind about anything.
- shadowgovt 4y agoPublic perception matters (it eventually drives whether a businessman can do business, since all business is trust-based), but Musk buying Twitter has had a lot more effect than any journalist writing about him ever could.
- throw-7462637 4y agoAs others mentioned the hit pieces will come anyway. The success that SpaceX has had so far very clearly shows that aiming high and embracing failure is the best way to develop rockets.
- ravenstine 4y agoNo such thing as bad publicity, I take it?
- throw-7462637 4y agoI would not go as far as that. But pushing boundaries means you will be misunderstood, at least some of the time. It’s par for the course.
- ravenstine 4y agoFair point, indeed.
- dghlsakjg 4y agoA rocket is a structure designed to be as light as possible while containing as much energy as possible. That combination is inherently explosive in any sort of failure. Historically we can see that there are two modes of rocket development when it comes to failure tolerance. 1. Iterate fast and blow stuff up (e.g. mercury/redstone, spacex) or 2. Iterate slowly, at massive cost, with fewer catastrophic failures (space shuttle, Apollo, SLS). When it comes to safety, the slow and expensive route has a dubious track record. Of course, slow and expensive is producing much more complex vehicles, until today, at least.
- pixl97 4y agoIf you're not blowing up at least some rockets you're overbuilding your rocket body hence wasting weight.
- risyachka 4y agoNo, it won't. It is obvious that every new rocket that was built from ground up will fail a few times before it is released. This is not a "production build". And you don't need to explain anything when your "test build" fails, it is obvious some will.
- ravenstine 4y agoThis assumes it matters to anyone who isn't an academic or HN geek.
- ClarityJones 4y agoIt would be absolutely reckless for SpaceX to not blow up rockets. How could they credibly claim to know the limits and abilities of their spacecrafts if they did not test those limits to the breaking point?
- ravenstine 4y agoThat's not being contested. What will be in conflict, I think, is engineering versus how that engineering may be perceived. Given enough time, investors and critics of government subsidies may also question whether "failure success" became an excuse.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- csbingel 4y agoCouldn't disagree more. The biggest innovation that SpaceX has brought to the table is the reusable nature of their platform, both reducing operation cost AND in reducing R&D costs. I believe one of the biggest contributors to the lack of space exploration and exploitation was the astronomical (pun totally intended) cost of both developing and operating the platforms to get us there. If this helps fix that, blow some stuff up!