• SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Boo-Yah for the great American Private Sector! All we have to to is get government to the size where we can drown it, and Business will take care of everything and do it more efficiently for less money, puh-raise JEE-zuz-ah!

    And yes, that was snark.

  • iocase@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    I wish the video was long enough to hear the sound of my prime membership going up in price

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 day ago

      This was a test run not too far from the real launch. This was not one of those launches where they expected a massive explosion from testing.

      • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Does anyone expect an unplanned rapid disassembly?

        You pay people more and keep them working at their best by providing them with robuat benefits, time off, and job/financial security so they can account for, plan, and mitigate shit like this.

        But noooo, layoffs, and “don’t tax me more, 40% of fed tax is payed by 1% of earners, which I’m not cause my income is 80K suckers! Work fast, break things, die faster slaves.”

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Does anyone expect an unplanned rapid disassembly?

          Jokes aside, there are test launches where new boosters are tested and they do expect catastrophic failures because they are still in the test phase. But this was not one of those tests.

  • Gonzako@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hell yeah! Billionaires losing money. Hope noone lost their lives in that assholes quest to rape anything untouched by greed

    • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nobody was hurt. As a general rule nobody fuels a rocket without planning as if it’s going to explode in exactly this fashion. The pad didn’t survive, but nobody was anywhere near this thing when it blew up

      • Gonzako@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, there’s “as a general rule” and then there’s “A billionaire wanted to save a negligible amount of money”, I personally assume the latter when talking about these parasites

        • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Luckily in this case, the people who build the rocket aren’t allowed to launch them for this very reason. Even NASA has a completely different team of people who launch rockets (in Florida) than who build them (Alabama, Mississippi, and others) or run the mission (Houston).

          The actual launch range is run by the Space Force and they have the final say on when and where you can launch and where you can’t be during launch (officially called an exclusion zone).

          • Gonzako@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            So its not the same people that do everything but why does this not encourage being cheapstakes at any of these steps? Im glad there’s oversight but I can’t grasp how it works just yet

            • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Well there’s always going to be penny pinching and greed, but because each team‘s job is singular and siloed, their success or failure is based on their only job. So there is a separation of pride. The launch team’s only job is to launch the rocket, they have no vested interest in the mission or how well it was built. So a cost saving move that would help the mission but hinder launching the rocket isn’t one that would be made by the launch team.

              That being said, nothing says that this won’t change as soon as more privatization happens in this sector.

        • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes, and they have a plan for what happens if the rocket explodes. It wouldn’t be completely safe against an explosion this intense, but the dragon capsule (like all manned vehicles, aside from the very notable exception of the space shuttle) can eject itself from the rocket to protect the crew from explosions

          • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Fun fact: the Shuttle was intended to have ejection capabilities, they were removed by the request of the Department of Defense. They provided extra funding for the Shuttle on the stipulation that it reach very specific orbits including a polar orbit that was only achievable by an extreme weight reduction. In fact later Shuttles also had to be modified to even make it to the ISS with a valuable amount of cargo. Columbia, the first Shuttle to fly to space, was always too heavy to make it to the ISS. The reason this happened is the president at the time, Jimmy Carter if I remember correctly, made some interesting and specific threats about their own capabilities to the Russians. These modifications were to make good on those threats.

            • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              A Rocket To Nowhere is an entertaining blog post which covers the design compromises you’re talking about:

              spoiler

              [735 of the 4.1k words of the above-linked blog post]

              By the time Shuttle development began, it was clear that the original vision of a Shuttle as part of a larger space transportation system was far too costly and ambitious to receive Congressional support. So NASA concentrated on building only the first component of its vision, a reusable manned spacecraft that could reach low earth orbit. Since NASA assumed it would be able to fly Shuttle missions with a turnaround time as low as two weeks, this left the vexing question of what to do with all that spare launch capacity. The tiny commercial launch market was in no shape to supply such a wealth of satellites, so NASA turned to the one agency that had an abundance of things requiring shooting into space - the Air Force - and asked it to abandon its unmanned rocket programs, instead committing all future satellite launches to the Shuttle.

              The Air Force was only too happy to agree, but at a crippling price. What the Air Force wanted to launch was spy satellites - lots of them, bulky telescopes with heavy mirrors, the bigger the better - and it wanted to launch them in an orbit over the Earth’s poles, so they could snoop over the maximum amount of Red territory. This meant NASA had to go back to the drawing board, since polar orbits would require a heavier orbiter than the Shuttle design had anticipated, which in turn meant using a bigger rocket at launch, and dissipating more heat during re-entry.

              Moreover, there was no way to launch a polar mission safely from Kennedy Space Center — it would mean overflying either heavily populated areas in the Carolinas or risking capture of a fuel tank by the wily Cubans. So the Air Force also demanded, and got, billions in funding to build a new Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg Air Force base in California. And because some of the Air Force’s military missions involved capturing a Soviet satellite on the sly and landing after one orbit, the Air Force demanded that the Shuttle be capable of gliding over a thousand miles cross-range during re-entry, so that it could catch up with the rapidly eastbound Air Force base underneath it. This meant bigger wings, which in turn meant more weight, an even more powerful rocket, and again a more complicated heat shield.

              Most of the really wrong design decisions in the Shuttle system — the side-mounted orbiter, solid rocket boosters, lack of air-breathing engines, no escape system, fragile heat protection — were the direct fallout of this design phase, when tight budgets and onerous Air Force requirements forced engineers to improvise solutions to problems that had as much to do to do with the mechanics of Congressional funding as the mechanics of flight. In a pattern that would recur repeatedly in the years to come, NASA managers decided that they were better off making spending cuts on initial design even if they resulted in much higher operating costs over the lifetime of the program.

              To further cut costs, and keep the weight from growing prohibitive, the Shuttle became the first manned spacecraft to fly without any kind of crew escape system, relying on certain components (solid rockets, wing tiles, landing gear) to function with complete reliability. NASA also decided not to make the Shuttle capable of unmanned flight, so that the first test flight of the vehicle would have astronauts on board. This was a major departure for the traditionally conservative agency, which had relied on redundant systems wherever possible, and always tested unmanned prototypes of any new rocket. It showed how confident NASA had grown in its ability to correctly predict, simulate, and design for high reliability.

              The final Shuttle design, incorporating all of the budgetary and Air Force design constraints, was impressive but not particularly useful. Very soon after the start of the program, it became clear that Shuttle launches would not be routine events, that it would cost a great deal of money to repair each orbiter after its trip to space, and that estimates of launch cost and frequency had been wildly optimistic. At the same time, the Air Force proved unable to get the Vandenberg base ready for use, negating much of the reason for the extensive Shuttle redesign. After the Challenger explosion, the Vandenberg base was quietly mothballed. Not once did the Shuttle fly a mission to polar orbit.

      • Balex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It looks like about 1/3 of Blue Origin’s total funds comes from government contacts. Now keep in mind, that means Blue Origin is providing a service in exchange for that money, it’s not just handed to them.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          is nasa somehow incapable of providing any service that blue origin provides?

          • Balex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

            Compare that to SpaceX’s Starship. It started full development in 2019, has cost $15 billion to date, brand new everything, fully reusable, developed arguably the best engine ever made, has flown multiple times now (to varying degrees of success).

            • eldavi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

              i’m going to chose to believe that you’ll agree w me that these deficiencies were intentionally manufactured “reagan-style”.

              • Balex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 hours ago

                I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time. My understanding is that it’s mainly a difference in approach to development. NASA has to worry about appealing to politicians and the public. So they spend more time and money to make sure to get it right the first time.

                SpaceX doesn’t have that same kind of worry, so they can develop quickly and fly test vehicles often to learn quickly.

                There’s pros and cons to both sides imo, but that’s why I think it makes more sense for NASA to use private launch providers while they focus more on the missions themselves.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                23 hours ago

                Yup, the same way they have crippled the US Post service. They destroy everything that is good so their friends can privatize and take over to reap huge profits.

            • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I thought total cost of SLS program is above 100billion alredy. And all that to fly bunch of people around the moon

              • Balex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                That’s for the entire Artemis program. SLS is just one part of that. I guess since I was comparing it to Starship it’d be fair to include Orion which would bump it up to $44 billion.