Those two astronauts are never coming down at this rate
A price Boeing is willing to pay… Now please pay executives their bonus peasants. They are your better
The build this fucking country with their barehands
Sorry, what?
Boeing is willing to pay for spacex not being perfect? And we should put astronauts on known safety risks because Challenger and Columbia weren’t enough for you?
Look, I get it. Everyone is influencer-pilled. But this isn’t even reddit: it is fricking lemmy. So how about trying to respond to topics and discussions rather than just non-existent karma and engagement farming with non sequitors?
You replied to the wrong comment.
Or you need to take your meds. Idk which.
To summarize the comment you are replying to:
“astronauts dying is a price Boeing is willing to pay”
“now pay the executives their bonus because, as executives, they are better than you. They also built this country by themselves with their bare hands, without help”
It’s extremely facetious, and pointing out that Boeing doesn’t give a shit about safety or the people in space, they just want money.
If you’re upset that lemmy isn’t trying to solve this problem… Well then I can’t help you there. This isn’t a place to investigate solutions to global problems or company management issues.
If you want to have one, by all means go make one yourself! unless you turn the speed dial to Plaid, it literally can’t be worse than the shitty job the companies are currently doing.
Sorry, did I miss something? Boeing took over the FAA?
JESUS GOD DAMNED CHRIST!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! Now THAT is news.
It has nothing to do with “trying to solve this problem” and pretending it does is just an obnoxious strawman. The issue is coming into a completely unrelated thread to spew some idiocy because your favorite influencer does the same. It is engagement farming for absolutely zero reason.
The ONLY mention of Boeing in that article was that they were being considered for a fallback. Which also includes misinformation about NASA deeming it unsafe (as opposed to not as safe/unnecessarily risky when there are safer options). Which… is an FAA and NASA decision. Because you can bet spacex would gladly fly their rockets if they were allowed to as well.
Learn to read
The day was not that long ago where every booster was expended after every launch. So the fact that this thing launched 23 times before failing is quite frankly amazing.
True but also something that should have been tested for and known before it was upright and fuelled again. I.e. why didn’t safety checks catch the issue(s)?
Oh, absolutely. And this failure here will just show that these are things that need to be done in the maintenance, which will make them last even longer.
I think the other idea is to retire them before they fail to avoid unnecessary risks and landing pad repairs.
Seems a little bit unfair to me that a reusable launch system can be grounded for issues on the way back, when discarding launch systems do not have to content with that.
It’s not really because it fell over. It’s because it wasn’t supposed to fall over. Consumable launch materials don’t contend with this because failure to return is a success. This is a failure. This must be learned from and fought against/prevented going forward.
Seems reasonable. This is exactly what the FAA should be doing and is why flying is so safe since every crash and accident becomes an opportunity to learn and adjust procedures to minimize the risks.
Let’s find out why it failed and then identify metrics for when a module can be reused.
i think part of the issue with the ‘throw away’ systems is they know exactly where that shit will land regardless of success. the re-use systems actively modify their flight path on the way back, and could poptentially veer off into populated places. maybe.
There are (or at least were) actually competent engineers at spacex. While we can’t rule out overengineering to an obscene degree, the amount of propulsion is going to be very limited. Basically enough to make minor adjustments and then one last burn to “safely” land.
Which is basically comparable to wind carrying a conventional booster off course. Yes, it is possible but it is mitigated by landing in an ocean and not doing this on windy days.
No, The issue is that there was a failure. Doesn’t matter when or where it happens. Something that was supposed to work didn’t and we need to understand that before we have yet another Challenger.
Let’s put it this way (yay metaphors, these never leave to pedantism and derailment): You just got home from driving to the local fun fair. You close your door and your mirror falls off. It happened AFTER you drove and AFTER you turned off the engine but… are you going to go on any road trips before figuring out what the hell happened?
are you going to go on any road trips before figuring out what the hell happened?
If you live in Maryland, sure why not? It’ll go along with the duct-tape-and-garbagebag oil pan.
If I remember correctly, they steer the rocket a little off from the landing spot until the last second so if anything were to go wrong it crashes in a safe, predetermined spot.
I mean. Traditional systems go through a LOT of very rigorous and documented-ish processes to be reused (not quite Rocket of Theseus but…). They are expected to be unusable after a launch and being able to reuse them is kind of an added bonus.
Reusable systems are specifically designed to be… reused. So if they aren’t reusable after a launch, something went horribly wrong and we need to understand why. Because maybe we got lucky and the proverbial door fell off after landing this time. Maybe next time it falls off mid-flight.
It’s a safety issue
Especially when you take into consideration the fact that the booster landed (and subsequently fell over) on a floating platform out at sea.
i’d be more shocked if a spacex launch didn’t end in flames.
I don’t think anyone has a better record of landing their rockets.
Why would they ground the whole fleet, the only bad outcome is economic for the company.
Why does OP keep promoting state propaganda? Username is a psyop.
