(October 8, 2024 at 1:27 am)Paleophyte Wrote:(October 7, 2024 at 3:25 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: The difference is that the testing is usually done on hardware in a much more mature state. How many other aerospace companies do you see launch rockets with an estimated success rate of just 50%? Where they're happy if the thing just makes it off the pad before it explodes?
NASA, Redstone and Mercury.
The problem with SpaceX is Musk's ego getting in the way of smart decisions. It's going to get people killed and will likely set back space tourism and exploration by a decade or two. You can almost hear the iceberg coming out of the dark.
C'mon Paleophyte, it's pretty silly to equivocate contemporary civilian aerospace companies with the US government at a time when they were in a
near-panic over the progress the Soviets had made in space compared to us.
I do share your concerns regarding Musk's caviler attitude regarding space tourism. There have been at least two bold (but risky) missions involving all-civilian crews. I breathed a sigh of relief when the "Hello Moon" guy backed out. I'm old enough to remember the Challenger disaster like it was yesterday.
That said, there is no way that even a disaster would set us back further than SpaceX has already advanced us. Without Falcon 9, a practical, reusable, orbital rocket system would not even be on the horizon. Few people thought it was even possible.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein