I think its very important that leftists understand how engineering works. You are never going to control the means of production if you or your friends don't understand how engineering works.
Ownership of the means of production means becoming project managers and engineers!
@tlalexander usually before you put a lot of money into building a prototype and launching it you don’t want it to explode, no? I would say it is a kind of failure, not a total failure of the project but not a success? Am I wrong?
@surveyor3 So there's actually two schools of thought on rocket development. One approach says you should design and test every single little component to high hell, over design everything, and make sure that under no circumstances will your rocket ever explode. This is how NASA develops rockets.
But doing all of that is extremely expensive in development, and it leads to expensive rockets. That's fine when you have the United States Congress funding your launches.
Another school of thought says - do your best and test to failure, then fix it repeatedly until it no longer fails. This is how SpaceX does it. Even though some rockets will explode, this approach is cheaper in the long run.
@surveyor3 NASA's big rocket costs $2B to launch and will fly a few times per decade. SpaceX plans to have their system fly for a few million dollars and fly hundreds of times per year.
SpaceX plans to build these rockets on an assembly line. So its just as important to be able to rapidly produce new ones as it is that they fly properly. So they can burn a few getting the design right.
What is important to realize is that there were a lot of things that did work properly today. Not everything was a success, but the test was a success because they found out what works and what doesn't.
@tlalexander @surveyor3 what bothers me is the impact on the environment these explosion have.
I'd prefer the way the NASA do, burning more money and less nature.
@software_libero_e_dintorni @surveyor3 It's an interesting question. Rocketry in general is not great to the environment. But it must be noted that the NASA approach involves building a new $2B rocket every time and then throwing it in the ocean after the first use. There is a LOT of carbon emissions in the production of aluminum and titanium, and that is wasted every single time NASA launches their vehicle. Plus its not good to drop our trash in the ocean like that.
The SpaceX rocket is meant to be reusable, so it ends up being a better use of resources in the long run. A few test articles end up in the sea, and then that stops. And of course, whether the rocket explodes or makes it to orbit, the propellant is burned either way.
@tlalexander @surveyor3 I understand the reusing part, and i prefer that.
I'd love to see more nature in the budget of the companies. At the moment, environment is expendable.
I am all in for innovation, but I'd prefer it to have a free as in freedom of speech license.
