4 ms·

Move fast and break things, amiright?

• ceejayoz 3y ago
  It's good enough for NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/white-sands/destructive-testing/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/white-sands/dest... We've crashed production probes into Mars, we've burned astronauts alive, we've had the supposedly "safe" options like Boeing's Starliner have fundamental problems even making it to orbit. Space has always been this way. Starship's more akin to taking the Bell X-1 up for a spin than flying a 787 around, for the time being. Problems are expected at this point in the program, or we'd be sending people on them already.
  • x86x87 3y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. On one side we are talking about how the "space industry" is most moving slowly and how spacex is doing great things. On the other side we are saying that this is good enough for nasa (who is the establishment when it comes to space) and yolo bro. On one side we are defending nasa because priorities, but on the other side we're cheering on spacex who is ultimately sucking at the big fat government tit. i'm not sure anyone is aiming at burning people alive and just because it happened does not make it a justification moving forward.
    • hparadiz 3y ago
      I don't know why you're being a contrarian here. Booster completed it's primary mission. Main vehicle survived long enough to show viability. Multiple technologies were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to work. Shuttle was 1.6 billion a launch. This is gonna be 100 million a lunch even if you let the booster blow up every time. This test is in line with how every new rocket is developed. You really need to Google the 50s and 60s of space flight and see how many rockets were lost in those days. Yet they still got to the moon.
• avmich 3y ago
  Quite reasonable incremental testing program.