Post by Sequoia aka Taylor Alexander

2y

@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.

1 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

2y

@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.

1 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

2y

@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.

1 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

2y

@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.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

0 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original