Way to go, space-x!

The problem is simple to figure out. Space X needs German scientists like NASA had.

LMAO… good point.

Someone put in a call to Berlin, quick!

Fair enough. I wasn’t necessarily commenting on the more basic design of the rocket, but rather on more specialized design changes which may be playing the larger role in their failures. True, I only did a rather cursory review and don’t know the details of their designs and engineering model. That said, though, my criticism of StevoR’s comparisons, I think, still stands. Let me paraphrase his arguments:

Jane, who has been playing tennis for 25 years, has played in hundreds of matches all over the world.
My neighbor Joe, who started playing tennis 2 years ago, has only played a few dozen matches, not one of which has been on a major court.

Jane has had an ace serve on every court she’s played on.
My neighbor Joe has never had an ace serve.

Jane has made some of the most amazing and astounding plays ever seen in the history of tennis.
My neighbor Joe hasn’t. Ever.

Jane has played against dozens of world-class tennis players.
My neighbor Joe (who we might remember, just started playing 2 years ago) hasn’t played anyone outside his tennis club.

Jane has played with and against people from all around the world in a spirit of cooperation and sporting competition.
Me neighbor Joe, again, has only played people within his tennis club, but he’s a pretty friendly guy and would probably love to play with and against people from all over the world, if given the opportunity.

Now, once Joe has had a good bit more experience and training under his belt, those comparisons would be a bit more valid. Now, I admit that this isn’t the best analogy, but I think it highlights the flaws in StevoR’s comparisons.

Is SpaceX doing the best possible job they could do? Maybe not. Is their performance reason enough to condemn private space exploration or to say that government programs are better than private endeavors? No. Unfortunately, private programs like SpaceX don’t have a very long history, and to condemn the entire concept based on one company is at best premature.

I just took a quick look at Space X’s web site and noticed that they aren’t really building on NASA’s shoulders. Their rockets are not simply updated versions of existing designs, but are new ones designed in-house. They are also adding a new innovation – making it a reusable launch vehicle. Now, this might not be the best way to go, but it does bring another variable into the comparison. Also, I would say that the new features they are putting into their designs also puts them on the cutting edge.

So in a bit over 20 mins (assuming you saw my post as soon as it listed) you can compair the design of Space X to NASA and figure out that this is a totally new design not reuseing anything NASA did? Sry, I’m not believing that.

Even so, you are missing the point. Yes, they are building on NASA shoulders, even if the design is 100% unique.

Example, The iphone may be a 100% unique phone, but the only reason it can be built ‘easily’ today is due to all the phones and lessons learned before it. The same is true for Space X, the only reason they can build this rocket quickly is due to all the other rockets shot before it. So to compair NASA mistakes to Space X is just darn silly when NASA had next to nothing to learn off of.

Thanks. Somebody changed html code, because in the past encapsulating commands with [ and ] worked just fine.

Anyway, imho, as long as capitalism is balanced by labor and service unions, it works just fine. That’s why we need international unions for international corporate cartels.