Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
view the rest of the comments
Ah, yes, the SpaceX method of rapid development and iterative design by... testing in production and making debris rain over the Caribbean, disrupting air traffic in the region.
I'm done with fanboys calling this method genius. "Oh, it would make the production lines idle for months". Bullshit. Just make it right. Compare it to the Saturn V, it only needed one test flight to orbit and never had a major failure, and the Saturn V had components welded and drilled by hand, with 60's tech. Oh, and it launched once every two or three months in 1969, just like Starship today.
If SpaceX could do this shit in a way that's more respectful to the environment and other humans then I think it'd make a lot of sense.
A lot of the early US space program used what is basically iteratively design. The military wanted big nukey rocket quick like what for to exploderate the Ruskis, and even NASA was honestly pretty cavalier until the Apollo 1 tragedy.
This doesn't excuse SpaceX for their shit at all. Find a way to do this shit safely or don't do iterative design.
I get the criticism but this method obviously works, spaceX is the most successful and profitable launch company because of this iterative design strategy on Falcon 9.
In the not too distant future starship will be successful as well and everyone will move on to reiterating the same complaints to whatever project they work on next that will also succeed. The engineers at SpaceX are modern day magicians, no matter how much you disagree with their method to achieve success