They are slow but it is by design. They want things to be safe. Some say they over engineer things but I think when we are talking about people, that is needed.
If you read all the comments by givesomefucks you will see that they ignore context and make wild assumptions repeatedly. They are on the hate musk train and not addressing the topic.
You: SpaceX?
givesomefuck: musk is terrible, musk blow up things, musk stole my girl/boyfriend
You: Okay, but what I was asking was…
givesomefucks: musk is the worst human ever, EVER!!!
Dude or lady is triggered. I get it musk is a douche of the highest order but givessomefucks has let it cause them to miss context and make wild assumptions. Sad really. I wish we could talk about things without whatever bullshit their on. My original question was only answered to the extent of musk is bad.
They literally don’t innovate in the same way. Like you said, if NASA blew up anything there’d be an investigation, making it impossible for them to iterate rapidly, meaning they are unable to innovate in the way private companies can.
They do…
The only advantage SpaceX has is that if NASA blew up a launchpad, there would be an investigation.
Everyone is used to Musk fucking shit up, and his defenders pretend it’s really a success.
Your problem is with the politicians who control NASA funding, not NASA.
Fucking SLS
Hey it’s got the best lawyers alright? It’s an amazing legal team, one of the most powerful in the space industry.
SLS has been a politician mandated thing long before Mr “words I have the best words”
They don’t.
That’s the difference. NASA wants every launch to be a success.
Space x is willing to blow some shit up to test an idea.
I prefer the nasa method for rockets. Too much risk just blowing shit up in my opinion.
I disagree. I think NASA still innovates but they do it on things like propulsion and earth sciences.
SpaceX created the first successful Full Flow Stage Combustion Cycle Engine, so they’re also innovative in the propulsion department.
They are slow but it is by design. They want things to be safe. Some say they over engineer things but I think when we are talking about people, that is needed.
When we’re talking about people dying, SpaceX has a better record than NASA
There was a very long investigation, pretty sure it hasn’t even concluded since they don’t have their license yet for their next test flight.
And why wouldn’t it count as a succes? You don’t see learning from design flaws as a succes? They clearly learned and iterated on the design
If you read all the comments by givesomefucks you will see that they ignore context and make wild assumptions repeatedly. They are on the hate musk train and not addressing the topic.
You: SpaceX?
givesomefuck: musk is terrible, musk blow up things, musk stole my girl/boyfriend
You: Okay, but what I was asking was…
givesomefucks: musk is the worst human ever, EVER!!!
Dude or lady is triggered. I get it musk is a douche of the highest order but givessomefucks has let it cause them to miss context and make wild assumptions. Sad really. I wish we could talk about things without whatever bullshit their on. My original question was only answered to the extent of musk is bad.
I just worry there could be GPT-4 instances here that’ve been instructed to make these conversations turn nasty
They literally don’t innovate in the same way. Like you said, if NASA blew up anything there’d be an investigation, making it impossible for them to iterate rapidly, meaning they are unable to innovate in the way private companies can.