907

submitted 10 months ago by sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 78 points 10 months ago

As someone who does know about this field, and absolute despise Musk, that's not quite true. SpaceX is very successful thanks to help from the US government, and despite the influence of Musk, but also because they are a team of very competent people who have actually innovated and pushed the boundaries of launch vehicles. To say they have nothing going for them and are being propped up by the government is not at all accurate, and they have been much more succesful than traditional government contractors.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 37 points 10 months ago

To say they have nothing going for them and are being propped up by the government is not at all accurate

That isn't what they're saying though, is it? They're saying that SpaceX has the ability to fail more than NASA, because they're not a government organization funded solely by taxes.

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Admittedly I think the biggest failures that hurt NASA were incidents when people, not rockets, blew up. It'll be interesting to see if things change if/when there is a death from a SpaceX rocket.

[-] jasondj@ttrpg.network 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

People die in work related incidents all the time. The only thing different about deaths from NASA incidents is that they are (usually) spectacular incidents (like massive explosions or cabin fires…not good things, just stunning) and high-profile.

SpaceX does well because they basically ignore Elon.

[-] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

That's definitely true. That should still not take away from the accomplishments of the SpaceX engineers. ULA had the same exact opportunities but completely wasted them.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Oh sorry yeah that was poorly worded. I don't mean to say that SpaceX engineers are failures, what they've accomplished is nothing short of incredible. But failure is an inevitable part of the engineering process of iterating and improving your solution. NASA doesn't have the luxury of quick iteration cycles like SpaceX does (comparatively), because each iteration means more money out of the taxpayers' pockets.