Nobody was hurt. As a general rule nobody fuels a rocket without planning as if it’s going to explode in exactly this fashion.
The pad didn’t survive, but nobody was anywhere near this thing when it blew up
Well, there’s “as a general rule” and then there’s “A billionaire wanted to save a negligible amount of money”, I personally assume the latter when talking about these parasites
Luckily in this case, the people who build the rocket aren’t allowed to launch them for this very reason. Even NASA has a completely different team of people who launch rockets (in Florida) than who build them (Alabama, Mississippi, and others) or run the mission (Houston).
The actual launch range is run by the Space Force and they have the final say on when and where you can launch and where you can’t be during launch (officially called an exclusion zone).
So its not the same people that do everything but why does this not encourage being cheapstakes at any of these steps? Im glad there’s oversight but I can’t grasp how it works just yet
Well there’s always going to be penny pinching and greed, but because each team‘s job is singular and siloed, their success or failure is based on their only job. So there is a separation of pride. The launch team’s only job is to launch the rocket, they have no vested interest in the mission or how well it was built. So a cost saving move that would help the mission but hinder launching the rocket isn’t one that would be made by the launch team.
That being said, nothing says that this won’t change as soon as more privatization happens in this sector.
Yes, and they have a plan for what happens if the rocket explodes. It wouldn’t be completely safe against an explosion this intense, but the dragon capsule (like all manned vehicles, aside from the very notable exception of the space shuttle) can eject itself from the rocket to protect the crew from explosions
Fun fact: the Shuttle was intended to have ejection capabilities, they were removed by the request of the Department of Defense. They provided extra funding for the Shuttle on the stipulation that it reach very specific orbits including a polar orbit that was only achievable by an extreme weight reduction. In fact later Shuttles also had to be modified to even make it to the ISS with a valuable amount of cargo. Columbia, the first Shuttle to fly to space, was always too heavy to make it to the ISS. The reason this happened is the president at the time, Jimmy Carter if I remember correctly, made some interesting and specific threats about their own capabilities to the Russians. These modifications were to make good on those threats.
It looks like about 1/3 of Blue Origin’s total funds comes from government contacts. Now keep in mind, that means Blue Origin is providing a service in exchange for that money, it’s not just handed to them.
NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.
Compare that to SpaceX’s Starship. It started full development in 2019, has cost $15 billion to date, brand new everything, fully reusable, developed arguably the best engine ever made, has flown multiple times now (to varying degrees of success).
NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.
i’m going to chose to believe that you’ll agree w me that these deficiencies were intentionally manufactured “reagan-style”.
I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time. My understanding is that it’s mainly a difference in approach to development. NASA has to worry about appealing to politicians and the public. So they spend more time and money to make sure to get it right the first time.
SpaceX doesn’t have that same kind of worry, so they can develop quickly and fly test vehicles often to learn quickly.
There’s pros and cons to both sides imo, but that’s why I think it makes more sense for NASA to use private launch providers while they focus more on the missions themselves.
I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time.
since president nixon, there’s been a well documented trend of gov’t programs intentionally starved of federal resources, with the goal of justifying private industry taking over services those programs once provided themselves. spacex is probably the most modern manifestation of this trend.
those “pros and cons” are a false framing intended to steer your opinion away from the question of why nasa can’t do this themselves anymore.
the last time nasa did this themselves, humanity got smartphones and modern medicine but when spacex does this, the only thing that happens is an epstein oligarch gets A LOT richer.
Hell yeah! Billionaires losing money. Hope noone lost their lives in that assholes quest to rape anything untouched by greed
Nobody was hurt. As a general rule nobody fuels a rocket without planning as if it’s going to explode in exactly this fashion. The pad didn’t survive, but nobody was anywhere near this thing when it blew up
Well, there’s “as a general rule” and then there’s “A billionaire wanted to save a negligible amount of money”, I personally assume the latter when talking about these parasites
Luckily in this case, the people who build the rocket aren’t allowed to launch them for this very reason. Even NASA has a completely different team of people who launch rockets (in Florida) than who build them (Alabama, Mississippi, and others) or run the mission (Houston).
The actual launch range is run by the Space Force and they have the final say on when and where you can launch and where you can’t be during launch (officially called an exclusion zone).
So its not the same people that do everything but why does this not encourage being cheapstakes at any of these steps? Im glad there’s oversight but I can’t grasp how it works just yet
Well there’s always going to be penny pinching and greed, but because each team‘s job is singular and siloed, their success or failure is based on their only job. So there is a separation of pride. The launch team’s only job is to launch the rocket, they have no vested interest in the mission or how well it was built. So a cost saving move that would help the mission but hinder launching the rocket isn’t one that would be made by the launch team.
That being said, nothing says that this won’t change as soon as more privatization happens in this sector.
The people sit in the Dragon on top of the the falcon 9 rocket as it fuels. “load and go”
Yes, and they have a plan for what happens if the rocket explodes. It wouldn’t be completely safe against an explosion this intense, but the dragon capsule (like all manned vehicles, aside from the very notable exception of the space shuttle) can eject itself from the rocket to protect the crew from explosions
Fun fact: the Shuttle was intended to have ejection capabilities, they were removed by the request of the Department of Defense. They provided extra funding for the Shuttle on the stipulation that it reach very specific orbits including a polar orbit that was only achievable by an extreme weight reduction. In fact later Shuttles also had to be modified to even make it to the ISS with a valuable amount of cargo. Columbia, the first Shuttle to fly to space, was always too heavy to make it to the ISS. The reason this happened is the president at the time, Jimmy Carter if I remember correctly, made some interesting and specific threats about their own capabilities to the Russians. These modifications were to make good on those threats.
Shame, was hoping Bozos had frontside seats.
isn’t a large part of it funded by taxpayer money?
It looks like about 1/3 of Blue Origin’s total funds comes from government contacts. Now keep in mind, that means Blue Origin is providing a service in exchange for that money, it’s not just handed to them.
is nasa somehow incapable of providing any service that blue origin provides?
NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.
Compare that to SpaceX’s Starship. It started full development in 2019, has cost $15 billion to date, brand new everything, fully reusable, developed arguably the best engine ever made, has flown multiple times now (to varying degrees of success).
I thought total cost of SLS program is above 100billion alredy. And all that to fly bunch of people around the moon
i’m going to chose to believe that you’ll agree w me that these deficiencies were intentionally manufactured “reagan-style”.
I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time. My understanding is that it’s mainly a difference in approach to development. NASA has to worry about appealing to politicians and the public. So they spend more time and money to make sure to get it right the first time.
SpaceX doesn’t have that same kind of worry, so they can develop quickly and fly test vehicles often to learn quickly.
There’s pros and cons to both sides imo, but that’s why I think it makes more sense for NASA to use private launch providers while they focus more on the missions themselves.
since president nixon, there’s been a well documented trend of gov’t programs intentionally starved of federal resources, with the goal of justifying private industry taking over services those programs once provided themselves. spacex is probably the most modern manifestation of this trend.
those “pros and cons” are a false framing intended to steer your opinion away from the question of why nasa can’t do this themselves anymore.
the last time nasa did this themselves, humanity got smartphones and modern medicine but when spacex does this, the only thing that happens is an epstein oligarch gets A LOT richer.