4 ms·
Except that a plane has passengers. But this rocket had none. It did not even have cargo. And it crashed in a pre-evacuated zone. There is no need to have the s
by duchenne 2y ago
Except that a plane has passengers. But this rocket had none. It did not even have cargo. And it crashed in a pre-evacuated zone. There is no need to have the same level of security for these two situations.
- Sakos 2y agoWhat expertise do you have in this industry that makes you better suited to determine that it's safe for them to continue without grounding?
- billfor 2y agoHe doesn’t need to be a vet to know the difference between a dog and a cat. Retrieving the booster is optional. Boeing, their competitor, can’t even do it.
- Sakos 2y agoSo because Boeing can't do it, we should just forget about safety investigations and let SpaceX do whatever? That logic doesn't fly. Neither does your nonsense analogy. Either we give a shit about safety or we don't. FAA previously grounded the Falcon 9 and cleared it to fly once they determined it was safe. They will do the same here. I feel like you and others are severely misjudging the formalities and expertise required for these things and so you're just armchairing this shit. It's tiring. You're not as smart as you think you are.
- billfor 2y agoYeah because Boeing can't do it and the FAA is OK with it, then SpaceX should be held to THAT same standard and not judged differently otherwise it treates SpaceX differently and contributes to complaints of political double standards. If it's safe enough for a Boeing booster to burn up on entry then the line should be drawn there. If SpaceX managed to land a booster to help recover costs that's a financial benefit to them and has no impact whatsoever on safety.
- extraduder_ire 2y ago> Boeing, their competitor, can’t even do it. I think you mean ULA. Boeing proper doesn't build or launch rockets anymore, but they do own a part of a launch provider.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jjk166 2y agoAnd the SpaceX flight that is grounded will have passengers. No one cares about the booster that's already failed, they care about making sure others don't.
- cchance 2y agoYes but the one that they grounded is not some record breaking booster thats flown 23 times lol
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoIt’s a booster SpaceX flew and attempted (and expected) to land. The deviance from expectations merits investigation. Broadly speaking, this is really good for SpaceX. It is probably the only launch company that can withstand FAA scrutiny of spacefaring like aviation.
- FireBeyond 2y agoAs another post said, just because a failure happened on this stage of flight, doesn't mean it couldn't happen on another, including a manned mission.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]