If things go wrong, they're already in the vehicle supposed to bring them back. It might be upsetting to be 3 locked doors away from your best way to come back home
I feel like other rocket builders, whether private or government, have way less launches but they have more successful launches percentage wise than Space X.
The only thing that matters is that things do not blow up with humans onboard: SpaceX simply accepted blow-ups as part of development cost, made sure nobody was hurt when they happen, and ended up building a rocket to carry humans to ISS much faster than eg. Boeing who got a bigger grant and is still not trusted to do that and bring them back (having only launched once to ISS last year, and not bringing astronauts back). So both faster and cheaper, and with some spectacle included too (everybody likes fireworks, right?)
They also started at the same time, and Falcon is now considered old tech (because SpaceX has been blowing up their new tech in the meantime).
Maybe parent feels like rocket science is a field that should have few launch failures?
I can't give you a quantitative answer since I'm usually focused on new research rather than what company/nation did said research... but their stuff does seem to blow up on the launchpad more often than NASA's :-)
I certainly am not. The only positive thing I have to say about those two is that SpaceX has cool rocketry tech.
>Why post anything online?
Typically people post things on HN for different reasons than they do on reddit or bsky, but your post seems like a much better fit for reddit or bsky. These types of factually nonsensical ideological signaling posts are popular on those websites, but are generally considered to be in poor form on this website.
Oh you mean like the endless spam about how Macs are the best laptops and computers in the world, being able to run large models at dogshit low tok/sec for the price of twice what would it take to build an equivalent dual 3090 desktop that will be much faster?
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with calling out shit companies ran by shit people, that present a real danger to the world.
> Because he suffers from MDS and as such can not but complain endlessly about anything which Musk has started. It is an unfortunate affliction for which the only cure seems to be extraction from whatever environment the sufferer inhabits and removal to another environment where there are no other sufferers, then slowly acclimatising to this new environment until the sufferer is again able to consider the person causing the derangement objectively.
Pot, meet kettle. It sounds like both of you should go outside and touch some grass.
Im not saying Dragon will explode. Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction.
As for MDS/TDS, be careful about accusing other people of those. Its not really about politics, more about bring your character into question of supporting pedophiles.
>Falcon 9 is also the most successful vehicle ever flown.
I feel like thats due to the sheer number of launches, which turns out are mostly paid out of pocket, as Space X is hugely unprofitable.
Thats not to say its not a good design, the Falcon engine is actually well made because of the open cycle design which is MUCH simpler to control than the Raptor which is the equivalent of Twin Turbos + Nitrous on 2.0L 4 banger pushing 1000 hp.
Yes, well, that and by aerobraking in the atmosphere where all that potential energy the capsule gained during launch has to be shed. There's plenty of reentry videos from Starship tests which show what happens to vehicle parts which are less protected by heat shields.
