Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: jeremyp on March 04, 2021, 10:33:44 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56275483
I wonder how many of Elon Musk's space rockets have to explode before before people start to wonder if he really knows what he is doing.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56275483
I wonder how many of Elon Musk's space rockets have to explode before before people start to wonder if he really knows what he is doing.
Agree. And I wonder how much mess and debris these explosions are leaving and how much damage they are doing right here on Earth.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56275483
I wonder how many of Elon Musk's space rockets have to explode before before people start to wonder if he really knows what he is doing.
I imagine this sort of accusation could have been levelled at all people striving to create new technology.
I am pleased he is prepared to finance experts to try. I don't imagine actually designs the things.
-
Boys with Toys! ::)
I am sure the money and effort can be used for much more important things, especially in these troubled times when we know the problems ahead.
-
I imagine this sort of accusation could have been levelled at all people striving to create new technology.
Three launches, three explosions. Most of the ground tests blew up too. At some point, they're going to have to have a success.
I don't imagine actually designs the things.
Of course he doesn't, although most of his fanbois think he's the incarnation of Tony Stark.
-
I imagine this sort of accusation could have been levelled at all people striving to create new technology.
I am pleased he is prepared to finance experts to try. I don't imagine actually designs the things.
Rockets are hardly new technology!
-
Rockets are hardly new technology!
Agreed, but getting them to land to be re-used is pretty good.
I wonder how many times the Wright brothers failed?
Perhaps their stuff all worked first time?
-
Three launches, three explosions. Most of the ground tests blew up too. At some point, they're going to have to have a success.
And each time they get further - this time it landed and was stable for a period, which is further than previous attempts. This is the nature of development - you have theoretical data and you put it into practice to see where it diverges from reality, learn, recalculate and get further.
Who only know how many failures lie unrecorded in Goddard's work, in Tsiolkovsky's, in Oberth's? We do know of a small number of high-profile incidents in NASA's programme much further into the development cycle than Space-X currently is, but those programmes weren't being as exhaustively watched.
O.
-
To be fair, most of the rockets which eventually launched the US Mercury capsules - the Redstone and Atlas - failed and exploded many times before being perfected. The Atlas went on to be America's preferred launcher for sattelites right into the late 1980s - despite elevem failures in one year - 1959. The Saturn rocket stages blew to bits with frightening regularity from testing in 1964-6. The omnly Saturn mission to fail entirely was Apollo 1 - and that was due to a failure in the command mosule before lift off, during testing. The rocket itself was reused for Apollo 9. In other words, these things are expected in trying to push th e boundries of what's possible.
-
Agreed, but getting them to land to be re-used is pretty good.
It's still not new. Even SpaceX can do it with the Falcon 9 first stage booster.
I wonder how many times the Wright brothers failed?
Perhaps their stuff all worked first time?
Perhaps not, but they didn't have 100% failure rate.
-
And each time they get further - this time it landed and was stable for a period, which is further than previous attempts. This is the nature of development - you have theoretical data and you put it into practice to see where it diverges from reality, learn, recalculate and get further.
Who only know how many failures lie unrecorded in Goddard's work, in Tsiolkovsky's, in Oberth's? We do know of a small number of high-profile incidents in NASA's programme much further into the development cycle than Space-X currently is, but those programmes weren't being as exhaustively watched.
O.
Goddard's failures were small model rockets, not massive ones. And they're still on the easy bit. They haven't even tried to return it from orbit yet.
-
It's still not new. Even SpaceX can do it with the Falcon 9 first stage booster.
Perhaps not, but they didn't have 100% failure rate.
When you start you almost always have 100% failure rate.
How many people get it right first time.
I am not sure what you are advocating?
If you do not succeed in the first few time, give up?
I think it's good that he is prepared to keep going.
I imagine what he is trying to do is very complicated and will take time and many trials.
-
Goddard's failures were small model rockets, not massive ones. And they're still on the easy bit. They haven't even tried to return it from orbit yet.
I studied aeronautical engineering; the hardest bits are getting things off the ground in one piece and, moreso, getting them back on it in one piece. Moving around inbetween is comparatively easy.
O.