So I’ve heard and seen the newest launch, and I thought for a private firm it seemed cool they were able to do it on their own, but I’m scratching my head that people are gushing about this as some hail mary.

I get the engineering required is staggering when it comes to these rocket tests, but NASA and other big space agencies have already done rocket tests and exploring bits of the moon which still astounds me to this day.

Is it because it’s not a multi billion government institution? When I tell colleagues about NASA doing stuff like this yeaaaars ago they’re like “Yea yea but this is different it’s crazy bro”

Can anyone help me understand? Any SpaceX or Tesla fans here?

  • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    They also have a very tight tolerance of failure. Every failure made in the engineering process brings more and more scrutiny by those holding the purse strings in Washington.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Specially this. How space x handles failures is a very hard nono in my book. “But we test in the field” is what space x says, and as a software developer its like saying “we test in production”.
      Yes youll get something use able faster, but its way way more costly in the long run and is nasty in between.
      My arse they cant test this stuff on earth. We have simulations, models, calculations, test, everything. Yes, things can and will sometimes still fail when going in production ( in flight ) but you want to lower the risk of it failing cause its costly as fuck.

      They dont seem to care though.

      Also, im not saying what they are building towards is bad, it really really isnt, but their methods is… Bad

      • DrownedRats@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Iterative development like that isn’t uncommon in engineering as a whole. Simulation can get you a long way but there’s a hard limit to that. You don’t think spacex designed a starship to use without running extensive simulations to try and figure it out before hand right?

        Sometimes you need to test in the field just to find out what bits you missed. Structural engineers will simulate and calculate extensively but they’ll still build scale models and test pieces because it’s the most reliable and effective way to ensure you’re covering as many bases as possible.

        Its not an either/or situation here. They’re doing the testing and simulation and applying it IRL to find out where things break.