this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
708 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
10 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Starlink shouldn't have existed. SpaceX should have been a division of NASA
Yes it went so well with innovation from NASA’s existing practice.
At least they're not blowing their budget exploding rockets...
No they’re somehow managing to blow it neither launching nor exploding rockets.
They’re blowing it on extra helium to make up for all the blowing helium
And the lesson is that they probably should’ve blown up more rockets on purpose rather than lose them on accident.
The Falcon 9 has the largest number of successful launches of any rocket ever by a large margin.
lol
I mean you can giggle at the turn of phrase, but clearly what is meant is to be more willing to tolerate risk. Very clearly that’s been a much shorter path to success than the one NASA took.
You can be more direct with it. Going out and doing something you know will fail is failing on purpose. SpaceX fails on purpose sometimes. They don’t just tolerate the risk of it; they set up cameras and other sensors and push their systems to failure on purpose.
Another example of failing on purpose is when you do push-ups until the point of collapse.
I am pretty sure they are making lots of money. You know based on the little bit of financial information leaking out.
Lots of people are experts on this topic it seems. They should form their own launch provider and show how it is done. Because results generally speak for themselves. They went from nothing to controlling over half the launches of the human race as a whole in about a decade. Did they get government money? Oh you betcha. Did they get as much as their rivals did? Not even close.
Reusability makes sense, this technique of rapid trial and error also makes sense.
That might be true. But every organisation has to achieve its goals in the context that it exists. And to be fair to NASA they’ve realised it’s better to outsource development because it’s less prone to porn barrel politics.
"Porn barrel politics" I'm intrigued.
Wow 🤣 I am not sure what happened there. Should have been PORK barrel politics.
I’m also intrigued. Clearly things are more exciting at NASA than I thought.
That's never going to happen. Both Democrats and Republicans abuse NASA and take money from it. Because the public doesn't care or understand the importance of space travel. Your comments are a prime example of misinformation about space capabilities that NASA has. Without SpaceX, we would still be sucking Russia off to launch on the ISS. Spacex doesn't give a fuck about politicians and just does what they want. That might be bad one day, but today it's fucking great, and anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or intentionally misleading
NASA has blown up their fair share of rockets in their day. A couple of shuttles as well. I'm saying that all the people working at SpaceX would have been better employed as NASA employees so their research isn't payealled.