The PR is 'anything past the launch pad is a bonus'. They've very successfully spun from the start that they're happy for a giant rocket to explode so they 'gather data', and not as if it's evidence of incompetency.
Is it really evidence of incompetency if their non prototype rockets are launching at a regular pace without issue? This month there have been 4 Falcon 9 launches so far.
The concerning part is the environmental effects of the launch and the lack of precautions Space X takes.
Sure? We masted normal rocket launches 50 years ago, an inability to do a standard rocket launch would be a truly insane level of incompetency.
Rocket failures do happen in prototypes, sure, but this rocket wasn't doing anything that special, failing after four minutes is not a success nor a great data gathering event, it's a failure in basic process. And yeah, a lack of precaution is incompetency.
The Falcon rockets are reusable unlike the older rockets
They probably failed at getting a lot of flight data but it is better to not test prototypes like Blue Origin? Will the New Glenn end up better? I think it would still have better data than just doing simulations
The bad thing to me is that the launches, whentether successful or not, are environmentaly damaging
It's not about not testing prototypes, it's about doing your proper precautionary checks, research and initial engineering so that you don't pointlessly blow up rockets. Yes, sometimes things will go wrong whatever you do, but that should be limited only to stuff that could not have been reasonably foreseen, and after so many failures it's obvious that this is not the only kind of cause.
The PR is 'anything past the launch pad is a bonus'. They've very successfully spun from the start that they're happy for a giant rocket to explode so they 'gather data', and not as if it's evidence of incompetency.
Is it really evidence of incompetency if their non prototype rockets are launching at a regular pace without issue? This month there have been 4 Falcon 9 launches so far.
The concerning part is the environmental effects of the launch and the lack of precautions Space X takes.
Sure? We masted normal rocket launches 50 years ago, an inability to do a standard rocket launch would be a truly insane level of incompetency.
Rocket failures do happen in prototypes, sure, but this rocket wasn't doing anything that special, failing after four minutes is not a success nor a great data gathering event, it's a failure in basic process. And yeah, a lack of precaution is incompetency.
The Falcon rockets are reusable unlike the older rockets
They probably failed at getting a lot of flight data but it is better to not test prototypes like Blue Origin? Will the New Glenn end up better? I think it would still have better data than just doing simulations
The bad thing to me is that the launches, whentether successful or not, are environmentaly damaging
It's not about not testing prototypes, it's about doing your proper precautionary checks, research and initial engineering so that you don't pointlessly blow up rockets. Yes, sometimes things will go wrong whatever you do, but that should be limited only to stuff that could not have been reasonably foreseen, and after so many failures it's obvious that this is not the only kind of cause.