3 ms·

This has to be the most ignorant comment here. Elon has been heading SpaceX as a Chief Engineer for a LONG time now, with undeniable success. How on earth would

by maxlin 3y ago

This has to be the most ignorant comment here. Elon has been heading SpaceX as a Chief Engineer for a LONG time now, with undeniable success. How on earth would what he asks X/Twitter to do affect this, even if you considered that bad or the worst thing ever?

rbanffy 3y ago
You do know that’s just the name of his role, not the job description, right? He was also quite adamant about not needing a fire suppression system on the pad while everyone else was saying to just dig a water trench and be over with it. Now he got his inverted shower head. It should work, but it delayed the second launch by almost a year.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  People were talking about a flame trench, and it was just the usual "nooo you can't do things differently" kind of whining. Not all too different from people saying suicide burns and barge landings would not be reliable when early Falcon 9 landing attempts failed. Even the internal engineers (ie the only people who matter in this case due to being the only people with the data) expected the previous pad to at least survive the first test flight (with some ablation). The shattering was a surprise that did not fit their own models. Beyond that they had already started work on the current system as a long term solution prior to the first flight.
- maxlin 3y ago
  Lol no. It is actually MORE de facto than de jure. Don't spread misinformation. I've seen that dogshit line replayed so many times. He's an engineer above everything else https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw "by year" doesn't make sense. Also, the flame "plate" was a reasonable test, it hadn't been tried before. Engines failing at start doomed what was otherwise at the very limit from what we've understood. If you watched the launch, you saw how extremely long the rocket stayed on the pad. It was because with engine failures the thrust was too low to get off and it actually needed to lose fuel. It was like 5x the time it would have been held down otherwise. It's a misnomer that anything really went truly "wrong" with the test. It's like pressing F5 and seeing the "There were build errors" popup.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Read the Isaacson biography. Musk is clearly deeply involved in the details of all his projects, to a degree that would seem unthinkable for almost any other CEO.

by maxlin 3y ago

rbanffy 3y ago

You do know that’s just the name of his role, not the job description, right? He was also quite adamant about not needing a fire suppression system on the pad while everyone else was saying to just dig a water trench and be over with it. Now he got his inverted shower head. It should work, but it delayed the second launch by almost a year.

dotnet00 3y ago
People were talking about a flame trench, and it was just the usual "nooo you can't do things differently" kind of whining. Not all too different from people saying suicide burns and barge landings would not be reliable when early Falcon 9 landing attempts failed. Even the internal engineers (ie the only people who matter in this case due to being the only people with the data) expected the previous pad to at least survive the first test flight (with some ablation). The shattering was a surprise that did not fit their own models. Beyond that they had already started work on the current system as a long term solution prior to the first flight.
maxlin 3y ago
Lol no. It is actually MORE de facto than de jure. Don't spread misinformation. I've seen that dogshit line replayed so many times. He's an engineer above everything else https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw "by year" doesn't make sense. Also, the flame "plate" was a reasonable test, it hadn't been tried before. Engines failing at start doomed what was otherwise at the very limit from what we've understood. If you watched the launch, you saw how extremely long the rocket stayed on the pad. It was because with engine failures the thrust was too low to get off and it actually needed to lose fuel. It was like 5x the time it would have been held down otherwise. It's a misnomer that anything really went truly "wrong" with the test. It's like pressing F5 and seeing the "There were build errors" popup.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Read the Isaacson biography. Musk is clearly deeply involved in the details of all his projects, to a degree that would seem unthinkable for almost any other CEO.