Space exploration: Where do we go from here?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

The (loud!) audible cheering from the SpaceX team when the rocket exploded made me sick.

I'm guessing word went out beforehand that anyone on tape expressing negative emotions, no matter what happened, would be sh*tcanned.

[MichVandal]

Maybe one of our engineers/physicists can address this. When Super Heavy was nuking the launch pad back to the stone age, if felt like the length of time it took to clear the tower was itself a problem. But was it? Or is that simply expected given the thrust required to lift something that heavy off the pad?

Seems to me that it should be compared to a full Saturn moon launch, which to me made it look reasonable. Although one of the high points of this system was the most power ever, so it could be a problem. Dx made a good suggestion that the pad damage may have had an impact on the rockets, so…

[Handyman]

I want responsible space tech. Not this libertarian disaster with no engineering controls whatsoever. No, I won't celebrate this as even a minor success. The more I read the more there is to hate about everything this company. They don't give a ****. Not one. This is going to get people killed in the air and on the ground.

This. If he wants to fly himself to space fine, let the actual geniuses and people who know how to not run a company or project into the ground handle stuff like this.

[Handyman]

I sincerely doubt that internally they don't see it as a failure and I don't feel the need to freak out over their subterfuge.

Also this program isn't at the Apollo stage so again...

dx - it was unmanned. Again SpaceX has a history prior to this launch and I believe a wait and see response isn't unwarranted.

Sorry but this is just wrong. The failures of the Mercury and Gemini missions were because the space program was in its infant stages. As dx said they were learning (pun partially intended) on the fly. There was no precedent set it was brand new technologies and no one had any idea what would work or how. The margin for error was greater because there were so many unknown variables due to us not knowing anything! (and btw those failures were ripped to shreds)

SpaceX has had positive outcomes, but that doesn't excuse how badly this went especially knowing what we know. It is one thing to fail because you are learning, that is part of the process. It is another to fail because you ignore basic math, physics and well just history in an effort to try and accomplish something that you aren't prepared for. Everything that was needed for this to go better was possible. There was no missing knowledge, some variable they couldn't have known, they knew and ignored safety protocols in an effort to make a splash. If NASA had done this they would be called in front of Congress and destroyed (we know this cause it has happened) and the media would be eating them alive. But because people believe SpaceX is some benevolent company looking to help people (it is not) they are largely buying the propaganda. It is disgusting, and the fact that they screwed up this badly causing environmental harm (so much for saving the Earth) proves that companies like SpaceX should not be allowed to handle this type of work. They have zero incentive to do things the right way.

[Slap Shot]

Does SpaceX have an endless blank check to justify the claim they have no incentives to not eff this up on an ongoing basis?

Don't reply to my post as if I'm a Musk fanboy. He can eat a bag of dicks.

[MichVandal]

Does SpaceX have an endless blank check to justify the claim they have no incentives to not eff this up on an ongoing basis?

Don't reply to my post as if I'm a Musk fanboy. He can eat a bag of dicks.

85% of their income comes from the US government. So yes.

[Kepler]

Seems to me that it should be compared to a full Saturn moon launch, which to me made it look reasonable. Although one of the high points of this system was the most power ever, so it could be a problem. Dx made a good suggestion that the pad damage may have had an impact on the rockets, so…

The rocketry Youtube I watched (Alpha Science, or something like that) noted that chunks of concrete pitted the tank farm that was a fair distance from the pad, and they made the point that several of the "rockets" were probably knocked out before it even cleared the tower, but I read that as the Starship rockets that failed on separation, not the Heavy rockets used for lift off.

[Slap Shot]

85% of their income comes from the US government. So yes.

Yes they do or don't have an incentive? Because i would hope the government would cease continuing that 85% if they're truly grossly incompetent.

[Kepler]

I was thinking that's severe exposure to politics, for example, to Elmo's Bond Villain act.

[MichVandal]

Yes they do or don't have an incentive? Because i would hope the government would cease continuing that 85% if they're truly grossly incompetent.

Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.

[Slap Shot]

Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.

That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.

[MichVandal]

That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.

As far as I know, as long as they don’t start blowing stuff up they get paid to launch, they will get funding.

[Slap Shot]

As far as I know, as long as they don’t start blowing stuff up they get paid to launch, they will get funding.

If that's true I put that as much on the ones that agreed to give them carte blanche as SpaceX themselves.

[MichVandal]

If that's true I put that as much on the ones that agreed to give them carte blanche as SpaceX themselves.

It’s not so much that the launch failed- that happens. It’s more all of the stuff that lead and followed it.

I do wonder about how much the whole thing will affect flight approval over the long run.

[aparch]

I still can't believe the destruction of the pad and surrounding area all because Musk "doesn't like the look of flame diverters or water suppression."

It's these little corners that they cut that just does not leave me with warm fuzzy feelings about NASA using SpaceX so heavily.

It's like Musk's ego couldn't handle 80 years of rocketry history and experience and threw it all out the window to "reinvent the wheel."

Tens of tiny rocket engines versus fewer and larger? The Soviets proved this was a problem, and scrapped it in favor of the tried and true bigger but fewer engines.

Flame diverter / water sound suppression? NASA, the Soviets, hell China figured that out long ago.

Launch pad design that doesn't resemble a roasted chicken stand? Again, Every space agency figured that sh*t out.

Rocket stage separation? SpaceX went pneumatic, instead of explosive bolts like every other rocket company.


It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you told me Musk doesn't like the ink in space pens AND hates that pencil lead can break in the capsule, so he's even having SpaceX engineer a new space pen.