this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
620 points (92.1% liked)

Technology

57455 readers
5898 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 113 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (16 children)

Okay? It was on a test stand. That's what test stands are for. Isn't stuff like this almost a weekly occurrence for them?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I don’t know how frequent it is, but the important point is the attitude that test failures can be ok. I don’t know if this one is, but yes there’s a pattern ….

Instead of being so risk averse that you take years and billions extra doing your best to create one of a kind hardware trying be perfect (NASA/Boeing), SpaceX builds many copies, iterate, test frequently, learn from failures. This approach seemed to have worked extremely well for previous rockets, so I’m still cheering them on.

Even just consider this test - the fact that they’re trying to build a rocket engine every week with the goal of automating the process well enough to have high confidence in them, can test it without the rocket, can build a rocket and attach engines later, can use a rocket and replace a failed engine. If this modular approach comes together this is huge!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

...what? SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA. US tax payers have had to cough up billions of dollars for seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to at least be able to get to space somehow in the meantime.

Iterating and failing is okay, but SpaceX has neither been faster nor cheaper in doing so than NASA's original moon landing program.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA

You are a few years behind the times yourself. SpaceX first flew crew to the ISS in 2020, and have flown 8 more crewed missions for NASA since then, as well as a few private missions.

Boeing (the other commercial crew contractor) has yet to fly a single human :)

load more comments (13 replies)