Plan to go to orbit, blow up seconds into the flight, and declare it a success.
Plan to refuel in orbit, make it minutes before the rocket brakes. Fire the FTS, it fails, the rocket blows up a minute later und declare it a successful test of the FTS.
Argue to NASA that you are not the limiting factor to the moon mission planed for the end of the year, despite delivering none of the milestones.
I take it you missed the recent fourth integrated flight test, in which the ship soft landed on the ocean near Australia as planned and the booster soft landed on the ocean near the launch site as planned
Their failure in that flight was expected. They hoped thermal tiles sealing the hinge for the aerodynamic surfaces would seal those against plasma during reentry. They didn’t. Had they, it would have been much cheaper than sealing those more thoroughly. The ship landed regardless of that failure
Disliking Musk is fair, but SpaceX is doing good stuff
Tbh it actually sounds a lot more like Boeing these days. F9/F9H is bulletproof reliable these days, and starship is making HUGE developmental strides, while Boeing is still failing to discover and iron out system integration bugs and hardware faults years after they had “completed the project”.
I call that following the same successful recipe that got us the Falcon 9.
The mindset that considers those tests failures is the same one that would still be in bureaucracy hell determining what 40 year old technology we should repurpose to get a future over budget, late, and under performing solution designed and built.
So 3 minutes+ (first test) is “seconds”, and rapid iterative development with early integration is not a programming methodology? You know that most mastodon servers prohibit counterfactualing, right?
For the record, 2nd test flight put the payload into the assigned orbit.
4th test flight got as far attempting a simulated landing (on water). Meanwhile, every other launch vehicle meets a hot flaming death in the atmosphere after delivering their payload to orbit (like test flight 2 did), because they don’t even try to land their vehicles after boosting.
Your problem is what, exactly, besides yourself? The hurr-durr is strong with this one.
What is the methodology called where you:
Plan to go to orbit, blow up seconds into the flight, and declare it a success.
Plan to refuel in orbit, make it minutes before the rocket brakes. Fire the FTS, it fails, the rocket blows up a minute later und declare it a successful test of the FTS.
Argue to NASA that you are not the limiting factor to the moon mission planed for the end of the year, despite delivering none of the milestones.
FTS = flight termination system
That’s called R&D, Research and Development. As long as you learn from a failure, it is progress towards success.
Getting to space. Fuck Musk, but SpaceX is doing great work.
An improvement.
This is the Kerbal methodology.
I take it you missed the recent fourth integrated flight test, in which the ship soft landed on the ocean near Australia as planned and the booster soft landed on the ocean near the launch site as planned
Their failure in that flight was expected. They hoped thermal tiles sealing the hinge for the aerodynamic surfaces would seal those against plasma during reentry. They didn’t. Had they, it would have been much cheaper than sealing those more thoroughly. The ship landed regardless of that failure
Disliking Musk is fair, but SpaceX is doing good stuff
Sounds a bit like the S&M methodology. SpaceX & Musk
Tbh it actually sounds a lot more like Boeing these days. F9/F9H is bulletproof reliable these days, and starship is making HUGE developmental strides, while Boeing is still failing to discover and iron out system integration bugs and hardware faults years after they had “completed the project”.
I call that following the same successful recipe that got us the Falcon 9.
The mindset that considers those tests failures is the same one that would still be in bureaucracy hell determining what 40 year old technology we should repurpose to get a future over budget, late, and under performing solution designed and built.
It’s a feature, not a bug
@anton @i_am_not_a_robot
So 3 minutes+ (first test) is “seconds”, and rapid iterative development with early integration is not a programming methodology? You know that most mastodon servers prohibit counterfactualing, right?
For the record, 2nd test flight put the payload into the assigned orbit.
4th test flight got as far attempting a simulated landing (on water). Meanwhile, every other launch vehicle meets a hot flaming death in the atmosphere after delivering their payload to orbit (like test flight 2 did), because they don’t even try to land their vehicles after boosting.
Your problem is what, exactly, besides yourself? The hurr-durr is strong with this one.