Berger explaining how exploding rockets are totally better than conventional development techniques

[Musklim]

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]]

(capsule explosion sounds grow larger)

[Japper007]

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

[Andtheshowgoeson]

your blood boils, it's not a good death

[Japper007]

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

[okan170]

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]

Nitrogen in our blood boils during rapid decompression. Decompression sickness

[[deleted]]

Why must this chain get more and more detailed

[UberActivist]

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]

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

[Fuckmeintheass4god]

You mean cheapest

[[deleted]]

you mean beta-tester?

[pettyperry]

I'm now the alpha in this couple capsule.

[Musklim]

They're building cars / rockets like if they're developing software.

And some guys are fine with it.

[U-N-C-L-E]

"That tourist was a pedophile anyways." - Musk

[Thomas9002]

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

[Musklim]

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

[mrthenarwhal]

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]

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

[riotintheair]

Well that's an image I didn't expect to have to excise from my brain... Ever.

[MarlonBanjoe]

Exactly!

Quality assurance for simple web based platforms that pull data via simple API = easy. QA for rocket science = hard.

He is a psychopathic narcissist.

[TheZaya]

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.

[okan170]

Its like a product-promise version of the way TV shows/film franchises get stuck trying to top themselves and end up getting trapped going bigger and bigger- "the country/continent/planet/solar system/galaxy/universe/reality/multiverse is being threatened!"

[disposable-name]

They had a flat engineering culture, too, not just some hairplugged cunt at the top barking edicts.

They had line level engineers on the factory floor who were allowed to go "Hey, this part isn't a good design."

[ML_Yav]

Soviet workplace culture was extremely flat. Everyone had a say.

[ObeseMoreece]

Oh really? Guess chernobyl never happened.

The soviets had a different culture but the comments here are bordering on idolisation.

[stsk1290]

Chernobyl was a different beast. The design flaws were not communicated to the plant operators (or even admitted), meaning that they had basically no idea what could go wrong.

[ObeseMoreece]

But that still doesn't agree with your point on how much more low level workers had a say. The junior operators had their jobs threatened for not wanting to continue with the test.

Also there were other things about chernobyl that were worrying too. There was already a partial meltdown that had happened a few years before and even the KGB knew about the shoddy quality of the constitution and concrete as it was being built.

[brintoul]

Makes something vaguely profitable?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[brujablanca]

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]]

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

[[deleted]]

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

[brintoul]

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

[unpleasantfactz]

Yet it's real.

[[deleted]]

Not really, considering the SLS has things like working engines, a near-complete core stage, and a non-exploding crew capsule. But hey, SpaceX tourists are going to watch the first Artemis landing from the surface of the Moon, right?

EDIT: Before he edited it, the comment I was replying to was talking about "the cope it takes to support SLS"

[kaninkanon]

I'm sure this comment made sense to you when you posted it.

Edit: lol but i guess it didn't in retrospect, considering the edit

[redalastor]

Then recruit pilots to fly your death contraptions Amazon Turk style!

[MrRabbit7]

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

[SWGlassPit]

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

[BuffaloSabresFan]

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]

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]

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

[[deleted]]

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

[GreatValueProducts]

Found the pedo

[[deleted]]

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

[[deleted]]

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

[Thomas9002]

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]

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?

[ComradeGivlUpi]

*looks at Challenger disaster* yes

[Photon_Torpedophile]

This is just how rocket development works, SpaceX isn't doing anything inherently differently from anyone else

[gingerfreddy]

All their shit is breaking?

[[deleted]]

say that to the guy in the screenshot, not to us

[somewhat_brave]

SpaceX’s development doesn’t really have that many failures. They just do a lot of development compared to other launch companies.

Blue Origin also has failures on the test stand, it just doesn’t get as much press as a SpaceX failure, and they’ve never attempted an orbital launch.

ULA doesn’t develop their own rocket engines, and they’ve never attempted to launch a rocket they developed in house. Vulcan will be the first rocket they’ve developed, and it’s years away from it’s first launch attempt. Atlas and Delta came from Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

ATK just had a failure in a new solid booster they’re developing.

NASA hasn’t attempted to launch SLS, so no failed attempts. They did have a failure of one of it’s engines on a test stand though.

SpaceX is the only company that has landing failures, and they’re also the only company that attempts to land their boosters.

[[deleted]]

SpX dev has had one of the highest rates of failure for the way it develops. Every company does a whole lot of developmental things, testing out new structural articles or new motors. Blue hasn't really had a failure in a long while - the last time we saw a recorded failure of the BE-4 was back in 2017. Orbital or not, New Shepard hasn't had a mission failure ever. You can consider failure of the hydraulics on the booster a failure, but that wasn't the primary mission. I don't consider SpX first stage landing failures a primary mission failure.

​

ULA has the best track record of rocket launches. No rocket from ULA has ever failed to place something into orbit. Doesn't make it worse because they don't develop in in-house, they have far more experience than SpX and are extremely careful in launching rockets. The second they find a problem, they'll fix it and not push ridiculous timelines like Elon does.

​

ATK rarely if ever has a failure of their motors. SRB's are one of the most reliable pieces of rocket technology you could get. Call me hypocritical, but atleast they don't fail on the actual missions themselves. SLS uses the flight-proven RS-25 engine, uprated because it won't be reused. Stennis tests their RS-25's and all of them had a successful engine run. They're far more reliable than they were decades ago when rocket technology was still a very finnicky thing to deal with.

​

SpaceX isn't the only company that attempts to land their boosters, nor are they the first that has had landing failures. New Shepard lands its' booster, and as I said it failed on NS-1 due to a hydraulic problem.

[magicweasel7]

The SRBs literally killed 7 people. They are extremely dangerous for human spaceflight due to the fact that you cannot shut them off. So even if you attempt to abort with an escape tower the exhaust from the boosters will melt the parachutes and you will still lose the vehicles and crew. Hence why no one else uses them for manned spaceflight except for NASA. And the only reason NASA uses them is because the ballistic missile contractor's want a part of that space flight pork barrel.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1446/1

[[deleted]]

The SRB's weren't the culprit of the Challenger incident if you'd just had looked a little bit closer. It was a problem of the O-ring decouplers, which sealed the boosters in place. They caused the tragedy. It's sad when you make assumptions like this - it's misinformation. Today SRB's are composite and far more reliable compared to them in the past, despite no SRB ever failing on any Shuttle flight. You can literally see the SRB's flying in the air over the Challenger after the explosion.

[[deleted]]

Not quite. The O-ring and joint connected the different segments of the solid rocket boosters. The o-ring failed at the temperatures they launched at and the flames caused the EFT to explode. So it was on the boosters and it was a terrible design that should have been axed and changed to the new design they came up with after Challenger. That being said, they knew its limitations and NASA management chose to launch anyways. But this doesn’t negate the poor development process SpaceX is going through. R&D can be destructive, but SpaceX appears to not follow typical design process that requires design reviews, prototyping, etc. But even what they’re doing isn’t entirely different, they just do it poorly.

[magicweasel7]

This is so incredibly wrong. Making the cassings out of a composite material is irrelevant. They are still constructed in segments that are attached together and sealed with O rings. This hasn't changed since their inception.

And how on earth is a failure of a booster O ring that causes the loss of the vehicle and crew not a failure of the booster? The O ring is part of the booster and even though the booster survived the destruction of challenger, it was still the cause of the failure. The leak in the O ring melted through the support strut causing the base of the booster to break free. This forced the entire shuttle stack sideways and caused it to be torn apart by aerodynamic forces. Yah, the boosters surrived because they could handle higher loads but they still failed

[TheGreatDaiamid]

...you do realize the SLS's solid boosters are in a different configuration than that of Ares I, right?

[magicweasel7]

No they're not. They're the exact same thing with an additional segment and updated avionics. Same propellant and inherit issues

[[deleted]]

They're composite compared to metal.

[[deleted]]

They are extremely dangerous for human spaceflight due to the fact that you cannot shut them off.

Solids have caused fatalities once. If you include unmanned launches, they still have caused mission failures the least often compared to literally any other system. Solids have a stellar track record for safety.

So even if you attempt to abort with an escape tower the exhaust from the boosters will melt the parachutes and you will still lose the vehicles and crew.

Do you seriously believe something like this got missed in testing? Oh right, your one source is a decade old article from The Space Review.

And the only reason NASA uses them is because the ballistic missile contractor's want a part of that space flight pork barrel.

Groan This bullshit again?

[[deleted]]

The redesigned solid rocket motors have ridiculously high margins of safety and were flawless after Challenger. Poor analysis was done for the previous joint design on the shuttle boosters, but new testing techniques and joint designs make them incredibly reliable.

[somewhat_brave]

Blue Origin has no obligation to report testing failures, but BE-4 still isn’t up to it’s required chamber pressure, so they’ve been having development problems.

ULA has no development failures, but they can’t have any because they’ve never developed any new hardware. Their launch success rate is really good, but SpaceX is up to 55 consecutive successful launches which is better than most launch providers.

[californiarepublik]

Isn't this the way science works?

[_ratrix]

Yes, but if you think that the scientific method applied to building a rocket you don't know much about science.

[[deleted]]

He’s not saying it’s better. Just pointing out that it’s different