So far my list includes Comcast, EA, and Nestle. Tell me yours, and I’ll help out.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do…

      The only advantage SpaceX has is that if NASA blew up a launchpad, there would be an investigation.

      Everyone is used to Musk fucking shit up, and his defenders pretend it’s really a success.

      Your problem is with the politicians who control NASA funding, not NASA.

      • Vlixz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There was a very long investigation, pretty sure it hasn’t even concluded since they don’t have their license yet for their next test flight.

        And why wouldn’t it count as a succes? You don’t see learning from design flaws as a succes? They clearly learned and iterated on the design

        • pensa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you read all the comments by givesomefucks you will see that they ignore context and make wild assumptions repeatedly. They are on the hate musk train and not addressing the topic.

          You: SpaceX?
          givesomefuck: musk is terrible, musk blow up things, musk stole my girl/boyfriend
          You: Okay, but what I was asking was…
          givesomefucks: musk is the worst human ever, EVER!!!

          Dude or lady is triggered. I get it musk is a douche of the highest order but givessomefucks has let it cause them to miss context and make wild assumptions. Sad really. I wish we could talk about things without whatever bullshit their on. My original question was only answered to the extent of musk is bad.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t.

        That’s the difference. NASA wants every launch to be a success.

        Space x is willing to blow some shit up to test an idea.

        I prefer the nasa method for rockets. Too much risk just blowing shit up in my opinion.

        • pensa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree. I think NASA still innovates but they do it on things like propulsion and earth sciences.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are slow but it is by design. They want things to be safe. Some say they over engineer things but I think when we are talking about people, that is needed.

          • Balex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            SpaceX created the first successful Full Flow Stage Combustion Cycle Engine, so they’re also innovative in the propulsion department.

    • pensa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They can’t because when they fail the public and then congress wants to cut their budget. NASA can no longer innovate and maintain funding.

      I hate that I have to put this qualifier but this is NOT an endorsement of musk.