5 ms·
If things go wrong, they're already in the vehicle supposed to bring them back. It might be upsetting to be 3 locked doors away from your best way to come back
by MrPouig 4mo ago
If things go wrong, they're already in the vehicle supposed to bring them back. It might be upsetting to be 3 locked doors away from your best way to come back home
- bArray 4mo agoThis is the right answer - if it goes wrong they are already placed in the escape vehicle, sitting in their space suits.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- ActorNightly 4mo ago[flagged]
- GolfPopper 4mo agoIs there any rocket-builder without a history of blowing things up?
- rvnx 4mo agoObviously not. Blowing things up is the reason for rocketry to exist and its historical basis. A fun fact about SpaceX: Remember our esteemed national American hero, and spiritual father of SpaceX, Wernher von Braun. Wernher wrote a book about Mars referring to "The Elon", an imaginary Mars governing body. The father of Elon Musk claimed that Elon's name came from there. Well at least, that's what he claims. Reality doesn't matter if you have billions and power. History can be rewritten.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- slipknotfan 3mo agoThe publishing-houses print history books. The rich own the publishing-houses. Q.E.D. The rich control the history books.
- PunchyHamster 3mo agoSaturn 1 and 1B didn't have failure I think ? Tho that's just one model
- dlgeek 3mo agoMade by Chrysler. They had plenty of failures with the Juno I and Juno II launchers.
- ActorNightly 3mo agoI feel like other rocket builders, whether private or government, have way less launches but they have more successful launches percentage wise than Space X.
- necovek 3mo agoAnd many more actual casualties? The only thing that matters is that things do not blow up with humans onboard: SpaceX simply accepted blow-ups as part of development cost, made sure nobody was hurt when they happen, and ended up building a rocket to carry humans to ISS much faster than eg. Boeing who got a bigger grant and is still not trusted to do that and bring them back (having only launched once to ISS last year, and not bringing astronauts back). So both faster and cheaper, and with some spectacle included too (everybody likes fireworks, right?) They also started at the same time, and Falcon is now considered old tech (because SpaceX has been blowing up their new tech in the meantime).
- andruby 4mo agoNot for crew carrying craft.
- l23k4 4mo agoWhy did you feel the need to post this comment?
- firefax 4mo ago>Why did you feel the need to post this comment? Maybe parent feels like rocket science is a field that should have few launch failures? I can't give you a quantitative answer since I'm usually focused on new research rather than what company/nation did said research... but their stuff does seem to blow up on the launchpad more often than NASA's :-)
- inglor_cz 4mo agoNASA does not produce any launch vehicles. It produces payloads and buys launch services from others. Unless you count test artifacts, an actual catastrophic failure of a rocket on a launchpad (or even in flight) has been rare in the last 10 years.
- kortilla 3mo agoPop quiz, how many rockets has SpaceX launched in the last 5 years? How many have blown up the launchpad?
- adaml_623 3mo agoTrivia question. When did NASA last launch a rocket not built by a commercial entity
- hagbard_c 3mo ago[flagged]
- jubilanti 3mo ago> Because he suffers from MDS and as such can not but complain endlessly about anything which Musk has started. It is an unfortunate affliction for which the only cure seems to be extraction from whatever environment the sufferer inhabits and removal to another environment where there are no other sufferers, then slowly acclimatising to this new environment until the sufferer is again able to consider the person causing the derangement objectively. Pot, meet kettle. It sounds like both of you should go outside and touch some grass.
- bigyabai 4mo agoLook on the bright side, at least you're not riding in Boeing's capsule.
- throwway120385 4mo agoI really detest Musk but Dragon has had a really good track record.
- XorNot 3mo agoFalcon 9 is also the most successful vehicle ever flown. The modern zeitgeist of not liking someone in one area so now everything associated with them must be bad is insufferable.
- ActorNightly 3mo ago>Falcon 9 is also the most successful vehicle ever flown. I feel like thats due to the sheer number of launches, which turns out are mostly paid out of pocket, as Space X is hugely unprofitable. Thats not to say its not a good design, the Falcon engine is actually well made because of the open cycle design which is MUCH simpler to control than the Raptor which is the equivalent of Twin Turbos + Nitrous on 2.0L 4 banger pushing 1000 hp.
- djmips 4mo ago... and returning is mostly by gravity.
- hagbard_c 3mo agoYes, well, that and by aerobraking in the atmosphere where all that potential energy the capsule gained during launch has to be shed. There's plenty of reentry videos from Starship tests which show what happens to vehicle parts which are less protected by heat shields.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]