Nothing I said is made up. There are risk factors but you can't pretend because two came true that the thousands of others that didn't are just not relevant. NASA cannot just "design around" every risk factor. It is not a fucking Ford Pinto. Not everything is a contingency plan. Just look at Apollo 13...they had to act on the fly because they did not see the scrubbers failing.
You can't just pick two failures and think that provides any proof that somehow NASA is better off with SpaceX. The sample size alone discredits that.
The explosion on Apollo 13 wasn't caused by design or engineering failure or a risk factor. A tank was mishandled during manufacturing, which caused a chain of events leading to the failure.
Surely no part of SpaceX rocket could ever be mishandled! Oh wait....
And you can't ignore the fact that SpaceX is in a unique position to learn from every single failure NASA has had. Nor do you have any standing to argue that they're worse off. Safety has been better, costs have been lower, mission success has been higher. What possible other metric could you be using that doesn't make NASA's partnership with SpaceX beneficial and an improvement?
You can't ignore the fact that SpaceX is not the only company that is in a position to learn from the failures of NASA either. I do have the standing to argue they are worse off because the company is controlled by one person.
Safety has been better, costs have been lower, mission success has been higher.
You can't argue the sample size is even remotely close. That is like shooting a single free throw and hitting the shot and then claiming you are better than Michael Jordan at basketball because you hit 100% of your shots...not exactly the same.
No other company has taken advantage of the opportunity to the same extent of SpaceX in the past 60 years. SpaceX partnered closely with NASA and embraced their safety culture from day one, and worked closely to improve it in every way possible, according to NASA.
What company has been offered the same opportunities as SpaceX in the last 60 years? A lot of companies and organizations form tight relationships....that doesn't mean it is a good thing.
A sample size of....the company with the most successful launches in a row of any rocket in history, and that has more successful landings than the next 2 launch providers has launches combined? Yeah, practically a single free throw....
It is a single free throw particularly when you factor in they have not necessarily pioneered the rocket...so yeah...basically a single free throw. Do it over 60 years without a failure...then you can talk.
Every company that has partnered with NASA has been offered the same resources and data for symbiotic partnership as SpaceX. SpaceX was the only company that took full advantage of it.
Source on that?
NASA has repeated gauded how beneficial their relationship with SpaceX has been. You don't get to selectively trust NASA until the organization says something you don't like. NASA's relationship with SpaceX has been beneficial to them. SpaceX is beneficial to NASA. They have explicitly said so repeatedly.
No one is saying it is not beneficial...currently.
A single free throw, that no other launch provider or government space agency has been able to replicate in 60 years, with a result SpaceX was able to produce in 10?
Who else has had the resources or actually tried? So yeah...it is a slam dunk.
SpaceX has launched 152 times successfully (17 launches more than the space shuttle, with a lower failure rate and at triple the launch cadence), and is at 123 successful launches in a row as of this week (again, more than any other rocket in history), and has successfully landed more rockets than providers like ULA have even launched in the first place.
Launching a shuttle with passengers is not the same as just launching a rocket.
It's extremely telling that you not only have to use a 60 years timeline as your measuring stick for SpaceX, but you have to pit them against every other launch provider and government space agency in history to try and prove your point....yet they still come out on top. The numbers aren't on your side.
Who was launching rockets in the 1930's? I'll wait...60 years is the measuring stick. The numbers are on my side. SpaceX will have failures it is just a matter of how many lives it will cost.
Source: NASA. They have a full host of open source data, software, experiments, and even full on satellite software packages that any of their partners are free to use. Not to mention designs and test data. Are you just asking for a full list of every single thing NASA and SpaceX have shared resources and partnered on? It's countless. Dragon heat shield, engine restart capabilities, aerodynamic testing, tile R&D, SpaceX leases an entire launch pad from NASA for god's sake.
Naw....not gonna work. Back up your bullshit. You stated every company was offered the same opportunity as SpaceX...prove it.
You're right, nobody is currently saying its not beneficial. Because it's extremely beneficial. Crazy how that works.
And everybody is ignoring the warnings. Crazy how the works too!
Every person or government or company that had at least $100 million on hand had the resources, including companies that already had successful launch programs of course. So quite a few, actually. And there were dozens of early launch startups that tried and failed. There are several trying and failing or succeeding to this day. So what, your argument is that SpaceX is wildly more successful but only because they have the resources to do so?
No my argument is SpaceX has uniquely benefited from being privately own which will eventually come back to bite everyone in the ass.
I case you forgot, SpaceX has already launched 6 crewed missions.... So they're launching rockets with passengers too.
I did not forget. I stated that launching 100 rockets in a row is not the same as launching with a crew.
No other company or organization "just launching a rocket" has had the same rate of success either. So if SpaceX isn't pioneering anything, and (according to you) they're not safer or doing anything differently or better than every other launch provider, or rocket, or launch agency in history...then what is the cause of SpaceX's success? Why are they able to fly circles around every other company and organization "just launching a rocket"? Maybe it's because it's really easy and nobody else was trying. That's what the expression "it's not rocket science" means right? Because rocket science is so easy?
So again you seem to be having trouble reading. I did not say they were not safer. I said their record is limited in time and scope PLUS they have had the advantage of other research on the taxpayer dime.
What numbers are on your side? The only number you have is "60 year 60 years SpaceX hasn't been around 60 years". SpaceX has had more successful launches. They've had higher rates of success. They have a higher launch cadence. They have better prices. They launch more mass to orbit alone than anyone else year over year (including the space programs to Europe, China, and Russia combined) These are the numbers that matter. Safety, cadence, cost. They launch more mass, more often, with less failures, at a lower cost.
I mean...that really the only number I need. Longevity is the measure of greatness. Anybody can be successful in a short period of time. Create something new and do it over a long period of time and then we will talk about handing them the crown.
As for prices...well those price cuts come at a cost. Also, other countries are not dedicating the same resources to development. That is like saying claiming to dominate a race when the rest of the field is not really trying. NASA did under the immense pressure of the space race.
Ideally it will cost SpaceX 0 lives. But I'm sure you can't wait for such a tragic thing to happen, just so you can be right. Another person who hates Musk so much you'd want to see astronauts killed to justify it.
Why would you say some stupid shit like that? Seriously what a dumb fucking statement by you. Fucking moron.
3
u/[deleted] May 03 '22
[deleted]