They just test-flew the most powerful, lowest-cost launch system currently operating, met or exceeded almost every goal set for the test, proved capability to meet most of the requirements their customers had, and provided proof-of-concept for their even more powerful under-construction next launch system.
And you’re complaining that the method for getting a ton of extremely low-cost PR as a bonus on top of that wasn’t serious enough?
Just to check, are we talking about the rocket company, or the car company here?
One feeds the other, for sure, and not having sat clients for the thing or doing any science with it or any actual testing of asteroids mining infrastructure makes it clear there’s not much planning going on, just like the car company, the hyperloop, etc.
For all his supposed vision, there isn’t much in actuality.
Or do you mean just this particular rocket, which this was a test flight for, and which needed to have proven capabilities before possible clients would commit? Apparently SpaceX even considered skipping this version, but their customers wanted to see it work.
How much new technology did you expect to be tested in a single first test flight?
Where to begin?
Yes, it’s an achievement with half a century of progress in metallurgy, propulsion, computers, controls, pumps, you name it, to produce a launch vehicle almost as powerful as a Saturn 5. The reusability is very significant.
However, it is not yet proven to be the lowest cost launch system. OK, it probably will be but right now that’s extrapolation, and serious engineers (and economists) do not like extrapolation.
Apollo didn’t run long enough to have a complete major disaster. When the Shuttle program ran, unfortunately it ran long enough to kill two crews. At least the statistics on launch fatalities were obtained as a result of which, it was abandoned. Right now, we simply do not know 1-p for the Poisson distribution.
This is the problem with rockets. They are big, expensive and can go bang in unanticipated and exciting ways. Ariane-5 achieved a reputation for great reliability and then it didn’t. The Russian rocket motors that launch CIA satellites into orbit, ditto. Unlike big ships which go wrong, there isn’t a convenient sea full of small ships to wait around in to be rescued.
I guess part of my problem with this is hubris, which Musk seems to have in cornucopia-loads. I vaguely feel that launching cars into space is tempting fate, even though I don’t believe in fate (crosses self, throws salt over shoulder, goes and touches convenient piece of wood).
I’d prefer a payload that was guaranteed to burn up completely in an unscheduled re-entry. Irrational, perhaps, but quem Iuppiter perdere vult, dementat prius.
(This does not mean “When Jupiter loses his vulture my Prius goes mad”, but it should.)
By the next time we see that Roadster (it’s orbiting the sun at about a 2:1 resonance to Earth, so 2 years at least) it’ll probably be mostly gone.
And a meteor generally needs to be either very tiny (so that it doesn’t meet air resistance) or >25m in diameter to survive re-entry.
Unless you meant during a launch failure, but, in that case, I think that that much rocket fuel would have disintegrated it anyway. Certainly more than it would have disintegrated a concrete block.
It’s reportedly far cheaper than the nearest current competitor even in non-reusable mode. Considering that this launch also confirmed that they could re-use previously-recovered Falcon rockets as part of its makeup (which reportedly saves them $40m or more per Falcon), the price drives down even further.
And yes, of course, that’s without knowing failure rates… but they had this launch in the first place, and flew a non-important payload, specifically to gather data relevant to that. They also aren’t completely in the dark on failure rates, since the individual Falcon rockets that make up the Heavy are currently in active service - it’s just the additional factors of the combined vehicle that they are gathering new information about.
SpaceX already has a proven launch system that is in active service. This was a test-flight to prove out a version which can, in reusable mode, do what the currently active version needs to be in non-reusable mode to do. And they did a darn good job of it, too, while also gathering data on a failure mode to correct for when a real payload is on the line…
The shuttle had a better safety record than Apollo-- but Nasa really shouldn’t have risked people when launching satellites-- and it’s likely that continued operations and experience would have improved the safety of Apollo-derived spacecraft as much as they have improved Soyuz.
According to that article (and the further linked one), they stripped all glass, the batteries, and the entire powertrain. So on an unexpected re-entry it would have basically been a carbon-fiber shell, some plastics, and the basic steel skeleton/undercarriage. Yeah, that probably would have ablated away to nothing in no time flat.
Ah, I didn’t know that (I did wonder about the lubricants though).
So, basically, they launched part of a Tesla into space. Let’s hope that doesn’t become a metaphor for the entire enterprise.
This is something I really concur with. The idea that you have to put people in things to make them good seems to me to be really Bad Science, it’s just Monkey PR.
With early aircraft there were no remote control systems that were usable so human pilots were the only option. The same with early steam vehicles. But there was no need for Shepard or, for that matter, Gagarin to be on those rockets. Shepard’s was little more than an ICBM launch with soft landing. The flawed perception of the “space race” led to a desperate rush which, in hindsight, was pretty silly. The French with Ariane showed that there was another way to approach space and made money at it.
I suppose you could argue that the Russian and US manned space program was an aberration and that SpaceX is just putting things back on what would have been a sensible track, with unmanned expeditions representing the real science.
I forget, is this the lowest cost most reliable yada yada or a fragile disposable experiment thing that isn’t worth any wasted effort? Spinning right round here.
It’s an experimental first (and successful) proving flight of the current lowest cost, most powerful yada yada. This really isn’t that difficult.
Also, I didn’t say anything about “most reliable”, and determining that is sort of the whole point of test flights like this (which is why you don’t fly anything you don’t want a good chance of losing on them!). I’ll thank you to not put words into my mouth.
Test flights happen. They’re risky, no matter how sure you are of the vehicle. This was one.
Sorry, not really bothering to keep the fans straight. Don’t let the failures bring you down too much, just don’t put too much faith in this one guy. He’s got a long life of flim flam ahead of him.
What is personal is that you seem to be confusing my being impressed by this launch and how successful it was, as me somehow being a “fan” that you need to “keep straight”, who is somehow going to be “brought down” by Musk’s “failures” and “flim flam”.
You clearly have an axe to grind here, and I want no part of it. I couldn’t care less about Musk or his personality. Keep your “sincere advice” to yourself.
Pretty sure I talked about Musk, speaking up for the skeptics. It’s a news event and the tech world isn’t a lockstep ideological movement. Maybe I’m wrong about that, it does seem very tolerant of billionaire fuckups.
You didn’t like what I had to say, you think I’m being personal. You’re wrong, but I’m done with this snipey back and forth, where I address the subject of the news and am myself attacked personally for my opinion.
as a result of which, it was abandoned. Right now, we simply do not know 1-p for the Poisson distribution.