Quote:
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
the difference is that NASA doesn't have the failure in the first place.
there is no failure in space flight. thats how you build things to fly in space. thats why its expensive and time consuming. one oring failure and you all die. you test the **** out of everything. thats why you do things the way NASA does them: because it works.
test and fail is how you build software, not rockets. no one dies when you pop the stack.
its almost like elon missed that first year engineering school advice that he loves so much, that the development process for an engineered item should probably fit the actual item you are engineering. software development strategies dont work for rocket ships you ****ing idiot , elon. i actually went to my first year of engineering school.
NASA can't fail like SpaceX/Elon, youd put them up as a posterchild of failed government spending. but you celebrate when elon fails, over and over again. makes no ****ing sense. every time he takes the launch pad, its another challenger level disaster of mis-engineering, and you guys love it? insane. "it did a new thing!" no ... everyone ****ing died on it. doesnt much matter if it did a new thing if everyone is dead.
|
The hardware for space flight is a proven established entity.
The software to make the G&C work the way it does is what Space X can do and NASA cannot.
The design paradigms that Space X pursue are leaps and bounds ahead of the stagnant beuracracy known as NASA.
NASA is a middle class welfare program at best, its time has come and gone.
The S/E portion of the contry is hooked on the NASA tit