Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> the stated primary objective was to get through staging without blowing up.

So I was more or less correct at the top of the thread when I said, "if the launch works through staging, SpaceX fans would declare it a success", and I consider that a low bar.




I think you might build a rocket that was less prone to blowing up, but it might not be as efficient.

You might also not be able to build it with a room full of idealistic youths running on inspiration.


I guess if you're a Longtermist, killing a 100 people on a flight to Mars is nothing if you save the human race.


They don’t have people on the rocket now right? It’s just a bunch of money being vaporized.


There were no crew on the first two Saturn V flights, yet the engineers considered it worthwhile to build them with sufficient care that they didn't vaporize anything except fuel and oxidizer.


In the span of ~50 years, we've gone from "sending men to the Moon" to "barely sending an empty rocket to the orbit".

Isn't science great?


I'm confused by your stance here, because it's like you aren't aware that the Falcon 9 rocket by SpaceX has launched 80 times this year so far, and 60 times last year, and those are all commercial launches with payloads.

Thats hardly what I would barely sending an empty rocket to orbit. Just because some new version is being tested using different technologies and methodologies of building and isn't fully functional doesn't indicate that we can't or don't regularly exceed what you say we're barely accomplishing as a people.


Yeah, I guess you're right. This is a thread about SpaceX, and I'm just hijacking it for my selfish reasons.

SpaceX is cool, I really hope they get to the Moon one day.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: