- cross-posted to:
- prepperintel
- cross-posted to:
- prepperintel
In short we’ve learned nothing, done nothing, and will be caught flat again. If you’re not ready, get ready, because no one is coming to save you.
In short we’ve learned nothing, done nothing, and will be caught flat again. If you’re not ready, get ready, because no one is coming to save you.
The exploding spaceships isn’t really a problem. That’s kind of the intention of the testing process. The way NASA does things, where everything is meticulously tested and nothing can fail ever, works, but it’s slower and more expensive. Destructive testing is faster, and has the benefit of possibly revealing failure modes you didn’t forsee.
I mean… explosive testing sounds even more expensive though, bc you cannot reuse the same components? Also, where does the need to do a rush job come in - if something takes a decade, then what’s so bad about waiting a decade? The point about total cost is well taken though.
We probably will agree that each have their merits, and a little bit of both could actually go a long way - like a fast-moving alpha stage vs. a more stable beta model.
Unfortunately from everything I’ve read (admittedly not much) I thought the US government has gone virtually all-in on the Musk train, with little funding leftover for additional models. Then again, space isn’t really a prioritization at all right now, compared to e.g. Ukraine, Gaza, Climate Change, infrastructure, inflation, etc., so that too makes some amount of sense.