If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   SpaceX Dragon spacecraft makes history ... just not the way they intended   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 123
    More: News, SpaceX Dragon, Orbital Sciences, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Elon Musk, SpaceX  
•       •       •

20810 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2012 at 7:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-19 09:14:40 AM  
Somebody get a truck to clean up all this white stuff.
 
2012-05-19 09:15:01 AM  
Thing with the shuttle is, once you light the solids, you can't turn em off, so you have to get off the pad, and far enough away to jettison them safely and return to Kennedy.
 
2012-05-19 09:15:21 AM  
Oh no! Our glorious future in space! We need Tang and Kraft Dinner in low Earth orbit!
 
2012-05-19 09:19:33 AM  

The Bestest: drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.

We're saving the country billions by relieving NASA of its heavy lifting (literally) and allowing a private industry to do it 10x cheaper in order for NASA itself to better concentrate on actual science an exploration instead of blowing a huge chunk of its budget on mundane space trucking.


You know why it got so expensive for NASA to build the rockets and shuttles and maintain them? Goddamn politicians that year after year refused to approve NASA's budget unless their district had a hand in the pie. With parts being made everywhere, there was no way to streamline and consolidate construction costs, and every small part was marked up because 'fark it, the gov't will pay it anyway'.

That's how private contractors can be cheaper, they don't have to deal with the hassle of begging some damned committee every year for funding, only to be forced to concede to having the rocket engine made in site A and the bell housing in site B, oh, and you'll have to have an adapter made in site C because the bell housing is being made to a different revision of the specs and site B can't be arsed to remake them.

They still have to get funding, but shareholders tend to be less dickish than Congress.
 
2012-05-19 09:22:34 AM  

Saberus Terras: The Bestest: drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.

We're saving the country billions by relieving NASA of its heavy lifting (literally) and allowing a private industry to do it 10x cheaper in order for NASA itself to better concentrate on actual science an exploration instead of blowing a huge chunk of its budget on mundane space trucking.

You know why it got so expensive for NASA to build the rockets and shuttles and maintain them? Goddamn politicians that year after year refused to approve NASA's budget unless their district had a hand in the pie. With parts being made everywhere, there was no way to streamline and consolidate construction costs, and every small part was marked up because 'fark it, the gov't will pay it anyway'.

That's how private contractors can be cheaper, they don't have to deal with the hassle of begging some damned committee every year for funding, only to be forced to concede to having the rocket engine made in site A and the bell housing in site B, oh, and you'll have to have an adapter made in site C because the bell housing is being made to a different revision of the specs and site B can't be arsed to remake them.

They still have to get funding, but shareholders tend to be less dickish than Congress.


This. This. And this. Same with military base closures/consolidations, post office closures, etc.
 
2012-05-19 10:18:37 AM  
Well it looks like they have pretty robust software.
 
2012-05-19 10:21:53 AM  
SpaceX loses 1 out of 9 engines and scrubs. Apollo 13 loses 1 out of 5, calls it a glitch, and keeps going.

i100.photobucket.com

/SpaceX will never have a cool movie featuring brass balls
 
2012-05-19 10:38:44 AM  

Alleyoop: SpaceX loses 1 out of 9 engines and scrubs. Apollo 13 loses 1 out of 5, calls it a glitch, and keeps going.

[i100.photobucket.com image 630x415]

/SpaceX will never have a cool movie featuring brass balls


It's a matter of timing.
If a Saturn lost an engine within the first few seconds of launch, it would have been doomed because you need power to clear the pad.

Similarly, once falcon has altitude and has burned off a few tons of fuel then it can continue to orbit without a few extra engines.
 
2012-05-19 10:42:47 AM  
Pitiful humans can't even get a cylinder off the ground.
 
2012-05-19 10:45:36 AM  

drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.


1/10

Keep trying
 
2012-05-19 10:54:16 AM  
This is what's wrong with SpaceX.

NASA would fly no matter what. They could have somebody saying "It's too cold for the solid rockets, if we fly today everybody will die" and they would still launch. They might lose a vehicle now and then, but at least NASA could stick to a launch schedule.

Eff this "test the engines" crap.
 
2012-05-19 11:01:18 AM  

studebaker hoch: This is what's wrong with SpaceX.

NASA would fly no matter what. They could have somebody saying "It's too cold for the solid rockets, if we fly today everybody will die" and they would still launch. They might lose a vehicle now and then, but at least NASA could stick to a launch schedule.

Eff this "test the engines" crap.


3/10. It felt like it, but the effort wasn't there.
 
2012-05-19 11:14:19 AM  
WHY IS MY PRECIOUS ROCKET SHIP DRIFTING OFF INTO DEEP SPACE!?
 
2012-05-19 11:30:03 AM  

Trade Secret: FYI BBC, it's NASA.


Time for some English language pedantry.

Words created by taking the initial letters of a thing are called initialisms. Acronyms are a subset of initialisms, where the initialism is pronounced as a word in its own right. The distinction isn't commonly made these days, with most referring to all initialisms as "acronyms".

BBC style guide is that acronyms are generally written as proper nouns. So, they'd report on the BBC, FDA, IRA ... but also on Nasa, Eta, Aids and Nato.

A brief google of news.bbc.co.uk suggests that they never capitalise laser, radar, sonar or scuba however, but few do in written English these days.
 
2012-05-19 11:44:03 AM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: How can you not be impressed with how fast SpaceX has been progressing? They have developed several complete systems in a matter of a few years, from scratch. Including multiple launch vehicles, with multiple successes. (and a couple of failures, which were expected.)


Once you realize that NASA provided them with a huge stack of requirements (essentially an instruction manual), a boat load of engineers to hold their hands, and most importantly, the money to finance most of it, it becomes much less impressive. Bottom line: if your one and only customer is the federal government, you are not a "commercial" or "private" venture, you're a contractor.

They do have a stellar PR department, though, a la Apple. They've convinced the world (including you) that they're doing something new, as if NASA didn't do it all in the 60s and write tons of white papers about it.
 
2012-05-19 11:53:50 AM  
ronrecord.comronrecord.com
Lovell and Borman know that feel.
 
2012-05-19 11:56:52 AM  

HighlanderRPI: Getting some unusual readings in the rocket, resulting in an aborted launch?

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

/hot like rocket exhaust


Needs more Red XIII
 
2012-05-19 11:59:12 AM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

Oh no! Our glorious future in space! We need Tang and Kraft Dinner in low Earth orbit!

Dude... You're among friends. It's ok if your wife left you for a NASA engineer because your pecker stopped working as you got old. We're there for you.

i47.tinypic.com

And I hope you get the pill that fixes your eyesight as you posted in an earlier thread soon. I'm sure it'll be along any day now.
 
2012-05-19 12:03:50 PM  
jayphat:

Are you sure about the exploration part? The director of NASA said the White House wants him to concentrate on Muslim outreach and climate change.

I would like to hear more about this. Would you be so kind as to exposit?

Please... Do tell.
 
2012-05-19 12:05:27 PM  

jayphat: The Bestest: drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.

We're saving the country billions by relieving NASA of its heavy lifting (literally) and allowing a private industry to do it 10x cheaper in order for NASA itself to better concentrate on actual science an exploration instead of blowing a huge chunk of its budget on mundane space trucking.

Are you sure about the exploration part? The director of NASA said the White House wants him to concentrate on Muslim outreach and climate change.


1/10. You blew your cover right there. Not entirely inflammatory either.
 
2012-05-19 12:05:43 PM  

Linkster: drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.

1/10

Keep trying


Who's trolling? You not pissed that our government chooses to bail out billionaires while dismantling yet another thing that made this country great? Maybe you're trolling.
 
2012-05-19 12:09:57 PM  

Flatus: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: How can you not be impressed with how fast SpaceX has been progressing? They have developed several complete systems in a matter of a few years, from scratch. Including multiple launch vehicles, with multiple successes. (and a couple of failures, which were expected.)

Once you realize that NASA provided them with a huge stack of requirements (essentially an instruction manual), a boat load of engineers to hold their hands, and most importantly, the money to finance most of it, it becomes much less impressive. Bottom line: if your one and only customer is the federal government, you are not a "commercial" or "private" venture, you're a contractor.

They do have a stellar PR department, though, a la Apple. They've convinced the world (including you) that they're doing something new, as if NASA didn't do it all in the 60s and write tons of white papers about it.


They have several other customers.
I don't think anyone is claiming they're doing all of this out-of-the-blue in a complete vacuum. They absolutely had plenty to build on; not only technologically but NASA kicked in a good chunk of seed money too. It doesn't diminish the fact that they're actually able to follow through and deliver on a product, especially when you consider that the same advantages were given to much larger and established companies as well (like Boeing).
 
2012-05-19 12:23:24 PM  

Arthurgoboom: jayphat: The Bestest: drewsclues: We're giving up 50 years of space exploration progress so greedy farks can gamble with billions. fark this country.

We're saving the country billions by relieving NASA of its heavy lifting (literally) and allowing a private industry to do it 10x cheaper in order for NASA itself to better concentrate on actual science an exploration instead of blowing a huge chunk of its budget on mundane space trucking.

Are you sure about the exploration part? The director of NASA said the White House wants him to concentrate on Muslim outreach and climate change.

1/10. You blew your cover right there. Not entirely inflammatory either.


Apologies from my phone but here's the link to that. Not trolling:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/white-house-nasa-defend-c omments-about-nasa-outreach-to-muslim-world-criticized-by-conservative s/
 
2012-05-19 12:24:34 PM  

Alleyoop: SpaceX will never have a cool movie featuring brass balls


way south: It's a matter of timing.


You weren't supposed to notice that.
 
2012-05-19 12:33:40 PM  
 
2012-05-19 12:34:02 PM  
"I thought you ..."
"But you were suppose to ..."
"No no no. It says right here ..."
"But, but ..."


We've all been there. Just not so publicly.
 
2012-05-19 12:34:46 PM  
er, NON-html'ed urls.
 
2012-05-19 12:49:49 PM  

The Bestest: They have several other customers.


They have exactly zero other customers that are paying them to launch cargo to ISS. Companies that pay them a few bucks to ride along as ejectables don't count; without the NASA contract, they would not otherwise be doing this. In short, there is no viable business model for going to space, unless you're going to ISS. Space tourism will go bust once the millionaires are sick of it.
 
2012-05-19 12:55:39 PM  
Flatus:

The Bestest: They have several other customers.

They have exactly zero other customers that are paying them to launch cargo to ISS. Companies that pay them a few bucks to ride along as ejectables don't count; without the NASA contract, they would not otherwise be doing this. In short, there is no viable business model for going to space, unless you're going to ISS. Space tourism will go bust once the millionaires are sick of it.


The "New World" was a pretty iffy business model as well from Europe's perspective.

Gosh... Takes immense amounts of money, may take decades for payback, requires us to do things we haven't done in the past...

Thank goodness for crazy people.
 
2012-05-19 12:58:14 PM  

Flatus: The Bestest: They have several other customers.

They have exactly zero other customers that are paying them to launch cargo to ISS. Companies that pay them a few bucks to ride along as ejectables don't count; without the NASA contract, they would not otherwise be doing this. In short, there is no viable business model for going to space, unless you're going to ISS. Space tourism will go bust once the millionaires are sick of it.


Uh.. just exactly how many customers were you expecting specifically for ISS traffic?

Are you saying their sat launching business doesn't matter? Are you disregarding (or perhaps just unaware) of the partnership they just entered into with Bigelow?
 
2012-05-19 01:08:54 PM  
Are we dismantling NASA!!??

Where's the proof?

I don't see any.

Did anyone engage in a tantrum of ZOMGWTF WAAH bye bye NASA *sob sob* when Project Apollo was cut a couple missions short?

Aaaaanyone?

Bueller?
 
2012-05-19 01:12:47 PM  

maxheck:The "New World" was a pretty iffy business model as well from Europe's perspective.

I'm not in any way comparing what they're doing to exploration. They aren't doing anything even remotely new, or exploratory. What NASA has brewing for a deep space habitat at the Earth/Moon L2 LaGrange Point is new and exciting to me. What NASA was going to do with Constellation was exploration for the sake of mankind, which I completely supported... and still do. It's good that NASA is handing off the cargo/garbage duty to contractors, but let's not bullshiat anyone into thinking they're doing anything "new" or that they're "exploring."

The Bestest: Are you saying their sat launching business doesn't matter? Are you disregarding (or perhaps just unaware) of the partnership they just entered into with Bigelow?


Those vaporware projects are not sustaining their space business. The NASA contract is. My point said another way is this: their business model is the same as the US Post Office, with none of the customers. How's that working out?
 
2012-05-19 01:13:40 PM  

Flatus: The Bestest: They have several other customers.

They have exactly zero other customers that are paying them to launch cargo to ISS. Companies that pay them a few bucks to ride along as ejectables don't count; without the NASA contract, they would not otherwise be doing this. In short, there is no viable business model for going to space, unless you're going to ISS. Space tourism will go bust once the millionaires are sick of it.


Are you forgetting the Iridium launch contract?

It's true that more than half of SpaceX's income is coming from NASA, but that's not to say that they're ONLY serving NASA. There's a SpaceX launch facility under construction at Vandenberg AFB in California. That facility will only be able to do polar launches, which are useless for reaching the ISS but great for communications satellite launches.
 
2012-05-19 01:21:00 PM  
Flatus:

maxheck:The "New World" was a pretty iffy business model as well from Europe's perspective.

I'm not in any way comparing what they're doing to exploration. They aren't doing anything even remotely new, or exploratory. What NASA has brewing for a deep space habitat at the Earth/Moon L2 LaGrange Point is new and exciting to me. What NASA was going to do with Constellation was exploration for the sake of mankind, which I completely supported... and still do. It's good that NASA is handing off the cargo/garbage duty to contractors, but let's not bullshiat anyone into thinking they're doing anything "new" or that they're "exploring."

The Bestest: Are you saying their sat launching business doesn't matter? Are you disregarding (or perhaps just unaware) of the partnership they just entered into with Bigelow?

Those vaporware projects are not sustaining their space business. The NASA contract is. My point said another way is this: their business model is the same as the US Post Office, with none of the customers. How's that working out?


I'd point out that NASA has in the past lofted JPL's rovers, and they ARE the go-to for heavy launches. There are two organizations that can do that.
 
2012-05-19 01:22:18 PM  

Flatus: Those vaporware projects are not sustaining their space business. The NASA contract is. My point said another way is this: their business model is the same as the US Post Office, with none of the customers. How's that working out?


whaaaa?

They've already launched several small birds via Falcon 1, signed the largest commercial sat contract with Iridium and the Bigelow deal was announced a couple of weeks ago (which is arguably a bigger deal than the ISS contract as far as personnel transport is concerned).

I understand tempering your enthusiasm, but this is bordering on hate and I don't get where it's coming from.
 
2012-05-19 01:22:47 PM  
Or to put it better, there are very few organizations that can truly do useful things in space.
 
2012-05-19 01:25:06 PM  
SpaceX sure nailed down the abort/safe procedures.

I gotta hand it to SpaceX.

/no, seriously, WTbarkingF, someone actually thought
I was saying SpaceEggs yesterday.

//I am not exactly a happy little camper about that
 
2012-05-19 01:28:50 PM  
Flatus:

I'm not in any way comparing what they're doing to exploration. They aren't doing anything even remotely new, or exploratory. What NASA has brewing for a deep space habitat at the Earth/Moon L2 LaGrange Point is new and exciting to me. What NASA was going to do with Constellation was exploration for the sake of mankind, which I completely supported... and still do. It's good that NASA is handing off the cargo/garbage duty to contractors, but let's not bullshiat anyone into thinking they're doing anything "new" or that they're "exploring."

So... there is no research to be done in how to do things in LEO?

We happen to be new at this stuff. Pretty much every launch involves exploration, whether it involves some guy in a spacesuit or not.

And every launch gives us more information that might prove useful later, which might be exploration in and of itself.
 
2012-05-19 01:28:51 PM  

Flatus: maxheck:The "New World" was a pretty iffy business model as well from Europe's perspective.

I'm not in any way comparing what they're doing to exploration. They aren't doing anything even remotely new, or exploratory. What NASA has brewing for a deep space habitat at the Earth/Moon L2 LaGrange Point is new and exciting to me. What NASA was going to do with Constellation was exploration for the sake of mankind, which I completely supported... and still do. It's good that NASA is handing off the cargo/garbage duty to contractors, but let's not bullshiat anyone into thinking they're doing anything "new" or that they're "exploring."

The Bestest: Are you saying their sat launching business doesn't matter? Are you disregarding (or perhaps just unaware) of the partnership they just entered into with Bigelow?

Those vaporware projects are not sustaining their space business. The NASA contract is. My point said another way is this: their business model is the same as the US Post Office, with none of the customers. How's that working out?


I know what it means, but for the uninitiated, you'll have to explain to them what a LaGrange Point is. It might make people more interested.

/thank you Stargate
 
2012-05-19 01:37:05 PM  
Wait, people are biatching about this?

Holds and Scrubs happen all the time in spaceflight. A sensor shows an abnormal reading, they take a few minutes to double check or to determine if it's within safe bounds. Since launch windows are usually a few hours, that's not a problem.

With this flight, the window was one second. If anything tripped an error, they would have to power down the rocket and wait for another one. There was no time to hold and check. It would have been a miracle if they had managed to get it off last night, rockets are pretty damn complex things, and stuff like this happens all the time in launches.

Hopefully their next window allows a little more time to deal with problems, because shooting for a one second window was a little overoptimistic.
 
2012-05-19 01:42:05 PM  

The Bestest: Flatus: Those vaporware projects are not sustaining their space business. The NASA contract is. My point said another way is this: their business model is the same as the US Post Office, with none of the customers. How's that working out?

whaaaa?

They've already launched several small birds via Falcon 1, signed the largest commercial sat contract with Iridium and the Bigelow deal was announced a couple of weeks ago (which is arguably a bigger deal than the ISS contract as far as personnel transport is concerned).

I understand tempering your enthusiasm, but this is bordering on hate and I don't get where it's coming from.


This. SpaceX, at this point, may just be doing grocery runs, but it's all means to an end. Elon has said multiple times that the ultimate goal of SpaceX is to put some giant brass balls on Mars within a decade or two.

To say they're not doing anything new or exciting is just "u mad" shiat.

csb time: my best friend is an engineer on Dragon, and I've been to their Hawthorne facility a half dozen times or so. I'm actually going for a visit for memorial day next weekend. My buddy's cube sits about fifteen feet from in-production Dragon capsules, of which they're building five simultaneously at the moment. I would invite Flatus to go walk around that shop and look at the things they're doing in there and then try to tell me it's all run-of-the-mill.

/Flatus sounds like a big aerospace employee
 
2012-05-19 01:43:08 PM  

cptjeff: With this flight, the window was one second. If anything tripped an error, they would have to power down the rocket and wait for another one. There was no time to hold and check. It would have been a miracle if they had managed to get it off last night, rockets are pretty damn complex things, and stuff like this happens all the time in launches.


And this.
 
2012-05-19 01:46:57 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle:
I have the opposite opinion. How can you not be impressed with how fast SpaceX has been progressing? They have developed several complete systems in a matter of a few years, from scratch. Including multiple launch vehicles, with multiple successes. (and a couple of failures, which were expected.)


Because everything NASA discovered and developed is in the public domain, and SpaceX a) has access to that engineering expertise, and b) has hired all the engineers who did the designing in the first place.
 
2012-05-19 01:55:45 PM  
Well, do this:

Build an ion drive bus with comm and solar power, and set it in to a transfer orbit going around and around to the moon.

Loft big cans of methane clathrate and ammonium nitrate (the stuff not available on the moon) and have them hook up to the bus.

Drop the cans on the moon, while you have remote-controlled bulldozers and whatnot digging a habitat.

Once everything is set up... THEN send the meat shot. Not before.

What we need do is get past is the idea of weekend camping and carrying everything with us when we go.
 
2012-05-19 02:05:40 PM  

Enigmamf: Because everything NASA discovered and developed is in the public domain, and SpaceX a) has access to that engineering expertise, and b) has hired all the engineers who did the designing in the first place.


They still had to design and engineer their launch systems from from the ground up. At this point, the next point in your unimpressed-ness would be "it's not rocket science" except for that IT'S farking ROCKET SCIENCE. If they took anything from NASA it was their understanding of launch windows, environmental forces on objects exiting the atmosphere, yes, some engineers, etc. General understanding sort of stuff. But it sounds like you're saying that these guys bought a Lego set and are just following the instructions.

SpaceX developed their own engines, their own rockets, their own capsules, their own avionics, shiat.. Their mission control room is a big glass-walled room right next to the entrance to the main production floor and is, in and of itself, a work of science fiction. Just because someone already figured out what general shape is best to use for the capsule, and that liquid oxygen glows a nice shade of orange at the proper temperatures, doesn't mean these guys are painting by numbers. That's like saying the people developing new Ferraris don't deserve any credit, because Toyota laid the groundwork with the 1996 Corolla.

But I'm sure all you guys already know all that from your extensive experience with putting shiat into orbit.
 
2012-05-19 02:11:49 PM  

Flatus: The Bestest: They have several other customers.

They have exactly zero other customers that are paying them to launch cargo to ISS. Companies that pay them a few bucks to ride along as ejectables don't count; without the NASA contract, they would not otherwise be doing this. In short, there is no viable business model for going to space, unless you're going to ISS. Space tourism will go bust once the millionaires are sick of it.


No, they can use this rocket to launch satellites too. Which is a highly profitable business.
 
2012-05-19 02:29:51 PM  
FTA: "We had a nominal countdown, right until about T-minus point-five-seconds," explained SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell.

Wow, that's some Hollywood level countdown clock abort stuff going on there.

/Bonus: so many comedic options with a name like Shotwell involved.
 
2012-05-19 02:32:17 PM  
The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation -- By Expedition 30/31 Flight Engineer Don Pettit


Once the vehicles become airborne, the engineering becomes more serious. Light weight structures made of aluminum, magnesium, titanium, epoxy-graphite composites are the norm. To alter the structure takes significant engineering; one does not simply weld on another chunk to your airframe if you want to live (or drill a hole through some convenient section). These vehicles cannot operate far from their designed limits; overloading an airplane by a factor of two results in disaster. Even though these vehicles are 30 to 40% propellant (60 to 70% structure and payload), there is room for engineering to comfortably operate thus there is a robust, safe, and cost effective aviation industry.

Rockets at 85% propellant and 15% structure and payload are on the extreme edge of our engineering ability to even fabricate (and to pay for!). They require constant engineering to keep flying. The seemingly smallest modifications require monumental analysis and testing of prototypes in vacuum chambers, shaker tables, and sometimes test launches in desert regions. Typical margins in structural design are 40%. Often, testing and analysis are only taken to 10% above the designed limit. For a Space Shuttle launch, 3 g's are the designed limit of acceleration. The stack has been certified (meaning tested to the point that we know it will keep working) to 3.3 g's. This operation has a 10% envelope for error. Imagine driving your car at 60 mph and then drifting to 66 mph, only to have your car self-destruct. This is life riding rockets, compliments of the rocket equation.


FLIGHT ENGINEER PETTIT IS AN AWESOME WRITER
 
2012-05-19 02:49:02 PM  

gsiofa: Skail: gsiofa: Why am I not surprised something from the Tesla Motors founders has been repeatedly delayed?

Yeah, it would have been way better if they'd have let it crash, instead.

Where are you getting the idea I said they should take off regardless of the possibility of a crash? I was only pointing out that Tesla has been plagued with repeated delays since the company was founded, much like SpaceX.


I'm sure your private space agency never delays a launch, and your experimental electric car company never slips a deadline?
 
2012-05-19 02:52:50 PM  

studebaker hoch: This is what's wrong with SpaceX.

NASA would fly no matter what. They could have somebody saying "It's too cold for the solid rockets, if we fly today everybody will die" and they would still launch. They might lose a vehicle now and then, but at least NASA could stick to a launch schedule.

Eff this "test the engines" crap.


What is it with these idiots? NASA is famous for scrubbing launches. It's a FARK meme, come on.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report