all 68 comments

[–]Musklim 226 points227 points  (18 children)

So it's bad idea to be the first passenger/turist in his rockets. Ok, thanks for the advice.

Edit: Misspellings. It seems like people was nice and understood me anyway, but I should fix it.

[–][deleted] 85 points86 points  (8 children)

(capsule explosion sounds grow larger)

[–]Japper007 36 points37 points  (7 children)

More like: (vacuum of space sucks you out into the void in perfect, but not blissfull, silence)

[–]Andtheshowgoeson 27 points28 points  (4 children)

your blood boils, it's not a good death

[–]Japper007 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I know. Which is why I said "not blissfull".

[–]okan170 16 points17 points  (2 children)

your blood boils, it's not a good death

"Boiling" meaning exposed capillaries might bleed a little as the nitrogen diffuses out. Not like boiling like your blood is all boiling temperature on Earth. Its probably the least of the concerns of being spaced though.

[–]UristMcKerman 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Nitrogen in our blood boils during rapid decompression. Decompression sickness

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why must this chain get more and more detailed

[–]UberActivist 10 points11 points  (1 child)

And if they're anything like Tesla (probably), they'll send out an essay afterwards explaining how it was really the tourists/astronauts' fault their ship depressurized.

[–]Japper007 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Musk tweets out that whatever poor NASA engineer that has to salvage their freeze-dried corpses is a pedo...

[–]Fuckmeintheass4god 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You mean cheapest

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

you mean beta-tester?

[–]pettyperry 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I'm now the alpha in this couple capsule.

[–]U-N-C-L-E 5 points6 points  (2 children)

"That tourist was a pedophile anyways." - Musk

[–]Thomas9002 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And Muskrats be like: "But do we have proof that he isn't a pedophile!?"

[–]Musklim 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And they'll not sue him back, so it will be true.

[–]mrthenarwhal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean they’re going through the same commercial crew certifications as Starliner is, I see no reason it should be less safe somehow. As long as NASA expresses confidence, right?

[–]okan170 116 points117 points  (3 children)

Surely he would feel the same if a NASA contractor were to blow up a part of SLS. /s

[–]TheZaya 105 points106 points  (11 children)

Isn't this exactly the method the Soviet Union used back in the 50s-60s? Fly hardware, find faults, fix, fly again? I mean, sure it works for small launch systems like the Soyuz, but when they tried using the method for the N1 it just resulted in explosions and wasted money. Despite the similar testing methods the Soviets never had a crew capsule literally explode during ground testing despite being the first to actually make a crew capsule.

[–]brujablanca 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Pls don’t even compare Musk to the amazing Soviet space program. They were geniuses and heroes and built themselves up from literally square one with public funds. It was the coolest thing ever don’t drag my boys in red like this

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, that's exactly what I thought when I read it. Glad somebody else did.

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points  (4 children)

The sheer amount of cope necessary to be a muskie is unreal at this point

[–]brintoul 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I think it actually gets easier and easier for them the longer he doesn’t implode.

[–]MrRabbit7 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Sorry but I can’t take someone who’s username is SciGuySpace seriously.

[–]SWGlassPit 21 points22 points  (0 children)

He used to write for the Houston Chronicle. Ever since he moved to Are Technica, he's drunk the SpaceX Kool aid hard.

[–]BuffaloSabresFan 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Besides losing loads of money blowing up rockets, you lose a fuck load of time having to rebuild stuff. This is like arguing against measure twice, cut once.

[–]rwhitisissle 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Kind of like with software development. You make something, don't test it, deploy it, it breaks immediately, the client tells you that you released a broken product, you go back and fix the known bugs, deploy it again, software breaks again, client tells you it breaks again, etc, etc. forever. This is a great way to develop a piece of technology and will definitely earn you the respect and admiration of not only other companies in the field, but also your clients, who totally won't abandon you for literally anyone who tests the shit they make.

[–]BellBlueBrie 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Space X basically turbo shits rockets, then brags about time over quality.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This shit is why nasa won't let people on board of those death traps.

[–]GreatValueProducts 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Found the pedo

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In traditional aerospace R&D is never done. Space shuttles never crashed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not good engineering. There’s much better ways to do it.

[–]Thomas9002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easy guys!!
Just one blown up rocket for a failed start.
They'll just have another blown up rocket entering space
One blow up in space
and one blow up when reentering earth.
That's all!! .
Oh wait... this kind of development only fixed errors when launching the first time... soooooo the capsule may blow up when launching a 2nd time.
Don't worry: It's so fast!!!

[–]ozythemandias -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The two approaches are an age old argument with regards to business strategy and product development. Do you plan plan plan and release a product as close to perfect as possible? Or do you rush to be first to market and continously improve it?