What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Space exploration: Where do we go from here?

Oh, and for the record, I think it's 50:50 that Musk still refuses to go with a deluge and trench system. A responsible program would use this as a moment to stop, push back future launches, and assess how that decision was made. They'd fix the launch site and the management system that made the decision in the first place.


Edit: One more thing. This right here I think is why I'm so upset about this. Because as an engineer, nothing is fucking worse than a predictable catastrophic failure.

https://twitter.com/golikehellmachi/status/1649105315680632832?s=20

i am not a space exploration hater, but i do look at the privatization of it with a jaundiced eye, and predictable failures should be criticized very heavily, not glossed over just because space is cool.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
Oh, and for the record, I think it's 50:50 that Musk still refuses to go with a deluge and trench system. A responsible program would use this as a moment to stop, push back future launches, and assess how that decision was made. They'd fix the launch site and the management system that made the decision in the first place.


Edit: One more thing. This right here I think is why I'm so upset about this. Because as an engineer, nothing is ****ing worse than a predictable catastrophic failure.

https://twitter.com/golikehellmachi/status/1649105315680632832?s=20
Click to expand...

Good find.

I also pull this quote from that twitter user.

the pitch for privatization is always "private enterprise can do [x] faster/better/cheaper than government" and then those private enterprises cut important corners to do it, no one needs to defend the corner cutting, that wasn't the fucking deal.
Click to expand...

I see this across industry in my job. All over the place.
 
Killing Turtles is always a good idea too.

"space x destroyed their launchpad in a way they themselves predicted would happen and then the rocket blew up mid-flight, raining debris on a unique sea turtle breeding zone" is apparently a success, because someone will ostensibly learn something from it.
Click to expand...
 
It’s interesting that the only goal was to clear the tower to be a success, and even that was likely a failures due to the damage.

and they claim to save a lot of salaries doing it quickly. Yea, underpay staff to make progress. Good idea.
 
MichVandal said:
It’s interesting that the only goal was to clear the tower to be a success, and even that was likely a failures due to the damage.

and they claim to save a lot of salaries doing it quickly. Yea, underpay staff to make progress. Good idea.
Click to expand...

We're supposed to be better than this.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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…
 
dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slap Shot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Slap Shot said:
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.
Click to expand...

85% of their income comes from the US government. So yes.
 
MichVandal said:
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…
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Slap Shot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top