3 ms·

> Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea hindsight 2020, there have been bilion of $ thrown at it. Musk was promoting it as easy thing to do. And yet its "wil

> Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea hindsight 2020, there have been bilion of $ thrown at it. Musk was promoting it as easy thing to do. And yet its "wild bullshit idea" how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. According to his claims, he will have people on the way to mars last year, for sure. How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement?

dudinax 2y ago
Hindsight not needed for anyone who's studied transportation, but people ate it up anyway.
frickinLasers 2y ago
> how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I don't understand the question. Could it be the fact that a Falcon 9 just landed after its 20th trip to space? Seems pretty reusable to me. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. Apollo 1 wasn't the whole rocket, but I'd say the three astronauts who died were worth more than that. How many astronauts has SpaceX lost? ETA: Not one of those first stages returned to earth intact, so in that sense, all the rockets that launched were lost. ETAA: Apollo 1 wasn't on a Saturn V, so my initial response doesn't really follow.
avmich 2y ago
> I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. All Musk weirdness aside - SpaceX revolutionized the launch business for the planet, and for quite some time already, so it makes sense to watch what they're doing. Results tend to follow, even though many are delayed - but delayed only in comparison to announcements, not to how it's done elsewhere.
avmich 2y ago
> How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement? Well :) Saturns were simpler, and more modest by performance. And also tested more on test stands, not like Russians used to do - with more emphasis on flight testing. Look how much more successful the Starship testing program is in comparison to Soviet N-1 flights - and remain assured, N-1 was made by serious professionals.
dotnet00 2y ago
Are you arguing in good faith, or are you proudly showing off ignorance fueled by Musk derangement syndrome?
- me_me_me 2y ago
  > Musk derangement syndrome Is that, I have no arguments so I call people names reply? There are so many of the posts using it like a 'I win ticket' Its just a stupid Ad hominem attack.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    It's a "the facts are so blatantly obvious that you'd have to be intentionally ignoring them to be suggesting they're bullshit" reply.
    - me_me_me 2y ago
      sure, sure... facts... Oh I get it, the "facts". The stuff i can make up and call it probable future that never materializes but then nobody remembers it as I move on to another grift, facts wink
      - avmich 2y ago
        So, no substantial arguments? Case closed? Or Musk is still the universal villain, even when the talk is about something else?
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    It's a fact Musk is neither as brilliant and infallible as his fans say, nor as clueless as his detractors would like him to be. He's smart and arrogant, a dangerous combination that SpaceX, it seems, grew defenses against.
rbanffy 2y ago
Just like anyone else, Musk is right some times, wrong at others, and averages out as kind of OK. He's very good at attracting investment though, and SpaceX has been executing really well. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. NASA did lose a good couple rockets. They also lost the Apollo I and its crew even before it flew, as well as a number of near misses that were recovered by the brilliance of astronauts (Armstrong saved the day TWICE) and ground crews alike. They also lost two shuttles precisely because they couldn't afford bad news from propagating back to the senate. > And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement? NASA-style development is very risk averse, which is natural, as it's primarily a government agency tasked with keeping the aerospace and rocket industry happy and healthy, and preventing talented engineers and scientists from moving to Europe, India, Russia, or China. Or North Korea. NASA can't afford to lose three rockets, because each small piece is expensive and exhaustively simulated and tested before being assembled and launched. It does that to advance our theoretical understanding of how to build spacecraft. SpaceX iterates quickly and cheaply, blows up engines, rockets, tanks, launch pads and anything else, because it makes them cheaply and use them to learn what NASA does by careful simulation and lab testing.

dudinax 2y ago

Hindsight not needed for anyone who's studied transportation, but people ate it up anyway.

frickinLasers 2y ago

> how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I don't understand the question. Could it be the fact that a Falcon 9 just landed after its 20th trip to space? Seems pretty reusable to me. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. Apollo 1 wasn't the whole rocket, but I'd say the three astronauts who died were worth more than that. How many astronauts has SpaceX lost? ETA: Not one of those first stages returned to earth intact, so in that sense, all the rockets that launched were lost. ETAA: Apollo 1 wasn't on a Saturn V, so my initial response doesn't really follow.

avmich 2y ago

> I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. All Musk weirdness aside - SpaceX revolutionized the launch business for the planet, and for quite some time already, so it makes sense to watch what they're doing. Results tend to follow, even though many are delayed - but delayed only in comparison to announcements, not to how it's done elsewhere.

avmich 2y ago

> How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement? Well :) Saturns were simpler, and more modest by performance. And also tested more on test stands, not like Russians used to do - with more emphasis on flight testing. Look how much more successful the Starship testing program is in comparison to Soviet N-1 flights - and remain assured, N-1 was made by serious professionals.

dotnet00 2y ago

Are you arguing in good faith, or are you proudly showing off ignorance fueled by Musk derangement syndrome?

me_me_me 2y ago
> Musk derangement syndrome Is that, I have no arguments so I call people names reply? There are so many of the posts using it like a 'I win ticket' Its just a stupid Ad hominem attack.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  It's a "the facts are so blatantly obvious that you'd have to be intentionally ignoring them to be suggesting they're bullshit" reply.
  - me_me_me 2y ago
    sure, sure... facts... Oh I get it, the "facts". The stuff i can make up and call it probable future that never materializes but then nobody remembers it as I move on to another grift, facts wink
    - avmich 2y ago
      So, no substantial arguments? Case closed? Or Musk is still the universal villain, even when the talk is about something else?
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It's a fact Musk is neither as brilliant and infallible as his fans say, nor as clueless as his detractors would like him to be. He's smart and arrogant, a dangerous combination that SpaceX, it seems, grew defenses against.

rbanffy 2y ago

Just like anyone else, Musk is right some times, wrong at others, and averages out as kind of OK. He's very good at attracting investment though, and SpaceX has been executing really well. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. NASA did lose a good couple rockets. They also lost the Apollo I and its crew even before it flew, as well as a number of near misses that were recovered by the brilliance of astronauts (Armstrong saved the day TWICE) and ground crews alike. They also lost two shuttles precisely because they couldn't afford bad news from propagating back to the senate. > And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement? NASA-style development is very risk averse, which is natural, as it's primarily a government agency tasked with keeping the aerospace and rocket industry happy and healthy, and preventing talented engineers and scientists from moving to Europe, India, Russia, or China. Or North Korea. NASA can't afford to lose three rockets, because each small piece is expensive and exhaustively simulated and tested before being assembled and launched. It does that to advance our theoretical understanding of how to build spacecraft. SpaceX iterates quickly and cheaply, blows up engines, rockets, tanks, launch pads and anything else, because it makes them cheaply and use them to learn what NASA does by careful simulation and lab testing.