News Article: Explosion rocks SpaceX launch pad in Florida during test
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
You are talking about a massive, "controlled" explosion that must take place in order to lift a vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. I don't care how smart we've become, accidents, anomalies, whatever, ARE going to happen. I don't know if Zuckerberg was actually taking shot at Musk here or just frustrated/disappointed about it all but if he was, he is more of a douche than he often seems to be.
I suspect he's been on Facebook too long and thinks everything and everyone revolves around social media.
If you read the linked article you'll see that Musk sent out his response in a tweet....
Yeah. And Facebook and social media is a revolutionary thing, I get it. And I get that Facebook is more than just the social media platform. Indeed, they built this satellite for Internet access. But IMO, and it's just my opinion, what Musk has done with Space X and even Tesla completely dwarfs Facebook.
His net worth dropped by more than $390 million on Wednesday, it was actually $779 million.
"He suffered one Thursday, when his fortune, on paper, shrank by $779 million, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That was due to two factors: drops in the companies’ stock prices; and Wednesday’s regulatory filing showing he has put up an additional $489 million of his Tesla and SolarCity stock as collateral to secure personal borrowings. The pledged shares are stripped out of his total net worth calculation because they’re not immediately available to him."
Hey - you're preaching to the choir.....I'm on the side of space exploration
:smile:
This is a Facebook post by Andy Weir, author of "The Martian". I thought some of us might find it interesting.
Lots of people have asked me my opinion on the SpaceX anomaly of Sep 1. (“anomaly” is industry shorthand for “colossal explosion” by the way). What does it mean for commercial spaceflight? What does it mean for SpaceX? Well, here’s my take:We’ve spent 50 years watching NASA and ROSCOSMOS launch spacecraft with an incredible success rate. We’ve become spoiled. Because both of those entities put a huge emphasis on individual mission success. They don’t have to be cost-effective or find a way to turn a profit. They’re given money by their governments and told not to fail.
Commercial spaceflight is a different animal entirely. You have to take risks and find the edges. You can’t just spend more money to ensure mission success on every single launch. You have to fail from time to time. There’s no other way to find out what’s safe and what isn’t.
This is how the commercial air industry came about. Crash after crash after crash until we found out how to make planes that don’t crash. And, by the way, NASA and ROSCOSMOS had quite a few failures in their early days, too.
As for SpaceX’s health, they have 70 scheduled launches on their schedule worth $10 billion. They’ll be fine.
Science isn't success. Science is repeated failure until you run out of ways to fail.
Intersting perspective here:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-hope-it-reaches-mars-but-we-spacex-to-focus/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-hope-it-reaches-mars-but-we-spacex-to-focus/
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
