Off Topic Politics Thread

[StJabbo1]

I think to some extent everyone is right and everyone is wrong. The idea was for the booster to separate and return to the launch area, which it did. But the upper section was meant to continue into orbit, deploy mock satellites and then test various things related to reentry into the atmosphere before a controlled splashdown. I think the reentry experiments may have been where there were heat shields removed and so on.

So no, this test flight wasn't intended to break up when it did. Having said that, SpaceX are doing remarkable things, reusable rockets do have an important range of benefits (they reduce costs, you can launch more often, the environmental impact is reduced because you're not building a new rocket every time you launch) and this outcome was always a possibility so a "Haha. What a loser." type reaction isn't really merited.

I don't think testing spacecraft to destruction over airways and populated areas is going to catch on.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I don't think testing spacecraft to destruction over airways and populated areas is going to catch on.

Luckily for the world, not everyone is as blinkered as you. So the tests will continue

 

[......loading......]

The hacking group anonymous has revealed that Elon Musk has a secondary account called Ifindretards he used to belittle people.

 

[StJabbo1]

I don't think testing spacecraft to destruction over airways and populated areas is going to catch on.

Luckily for the world, not everyone is as blinkered as you. So the tests will continue

Are you really happy with that concept? The FAA aren't. Nor is anyone else who maybe on a flight or a beach below. Don't be be so pathetically anal about this.

 

[Puck]

Are you really happy with that concept? The FAA aren't. Nor is anyone else who maybe on a flight or a beach below.

The FAA have to approve these test flights so they clearly have been happy for them to take place.

Again though, the intention isn't that the rockets explode shortly after taking off. The latest test flight was scheduled to splashdown somewhere in the Indian Ocean. There was an investigation into the last accident, there'll have to be another one into this accident and SpaceX will have to satisfy the FAA they've made the necessary changes to be granted a licence for another test flight.

 

[StJabbo1]

The FAA have to approve these test flights so they clearly have been happy for them to take place.

Again though, the intention isn't that the rockets explode shortly after taking off. The latest test flight was scheduled to splashdown somewhere in the Indian Ocean. There was an investigation into the last accident, there'll have to be another one into this accident and SpaceX will have to satisfy the FAA they've made the necessary changes to be granted a licence for another test flight.

I'm aware of that and the ongoing investigation into the January failure. Advancing science and technology is one thing putting people at risk whilst doing so is another.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

I don't know why everyone is getting so excited about the science behind the development of rockets. It's hardly brain surgery is it?

 

[Ian Thumwood]

I think you are all missing the point. Musk's rocket is a metaphor for the American economy under Trump.

 

[AberdeenSaint]

Not true. Not with the level of stress we are talking about.

Plus speed is essential. It’s much faster to just test stuff and then rebuild.

Again - not sure why you’re arguing here. It’s their entire strategy and is why they’re one of the most successful engineering companies in history.
I’m not making this up, all you have to do is a tiny amount of research.

Why is it `Not true ` ? Again, if the design is sound and the materials selected correctly, then the levels of stress the equipment is subjected too should be within the parameters of the design.
And I`m not arguing - as an engineer, I`m curious. I don`t understand your logic here. I`m not going to suck the coolaid just because `they` offer it to us.
Why not subject the design to review by a competent external body, just as the owners of that Titan submersible should have done.
Sure Musk is a very smart business man - but he`s also the man who offered the services of his submersible to rescue those kids from the cave in Thailand. That was just plain ridiculous.

 

[Ian Thumwood]

Musk is just an attention seeker. He is really similar to Thomas Edison un that he employs the expertise of others in his company and claims the plaudits.

 

[Ian Thumwood]

Luckily for the world, not everyone is as blinkered as you. So the tests will continue

Have you got Elon's word on that ?


You have got to be under 18. Does your Mum know you are using her computer?

 

[Osvaldorama]

I'm aware of that and the ongoing investigation into the January failure. Advancing science and technology is one thing putting people at risk whilst doing so is another.

Why are you like this?

The flights are all approved for safety which is why they fly over the oceans.

Seriously all of this takes less than 5 minutes of research. Instead of trying to point score you could just check for yourself

 

[Osvaldorama]

Musk is just an attention seeker. He is really similar to Thomas Edison un that he employs the expertise of others in his company and claims the plaudits.

I’ve seen this talking point from lefty’s quite a lot. And it does make me laugh.

If you think his engineering accomplishments are in some way easy, you’ve clearly never managed or led an engineering company. Or any company for that matter.

If all he does is exploit people and take the plaudits, why has he successfully created multiple billion dollar companies and revolutionised multiple industries?

What industry’s have YOU disrupted that you can pass judgement and throw insults?

 

[StJabbo1]

Why are you like this?

The flights are all approved for safety which is why they fly over the oceans.

Seriously all of this takes less than 5 minutes of research. Instead of trying to point score you could just check for yourself

All checked and verified to my satisfaction, the truth is out there you choose to ignore it, your opinion is worth sweet **** all. The FAA will grant flight licenses when they're satisfied the faults that caused the failures in January and last Thursday are identified and rectified. You magnify your ignorance every time you post. I'm done with this you've been proved wrong yet again. Apologies are due for your incorrect and insulting posts.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Why is it `Not true ` ? Again, if the design is sound and the materials selected correctly, then the levels of stress the equipment is subjected too should be within the parameters of the design.
And I`m not arguing - as an engineer, I`m curious. I don`t understand your logic here. I`m not going to suck the coolaid just because `they` offer it to us.
Why not subject the design to review by a competent external body, just as the owners of that Titan submersible should have done.
Sure Musk is a very smart business man - but he`s also the man who offered the services of his submersible to rescue those kids from the cave in Thailand. That was just plain ridiculous.

SpaceX’s philosophy isn’t about ignoring sound design or material selection. It’s rooted in a development strategy called “rapid iteration” or “test-driven engineering.” The idea is to build, test, fail fast, and learn quickly—rather than spending years perfecting a design on paper only to find out it doesn’t work in the real world. Traditional aerospace (think NASA’s Apollo era or Boeing) leaned heavily on exhaustive upfront analysis, simulations, and peer reviews to ensure nothing failed. That worked for one-off missions with massive budgets and zero tolerance for failure. SpaceX, though, is chasing reusable rockets and drastically lower launch costs, which demands a different mindset.

The logic here is practical: real-world data trumps theoretical models. Even with a “sound” design and correctly selected materials, unexpected stresses, manufacturing flaws, or edge cases can emerge during flight. Simulations are great, but they’re only as good as the assumptions you feed them. By launching prototypes—like Starship—and letting them explode (controlled or not), SpaceX gathers telemetry and failure data you can’t replicate in a lab. For example, the first few Starship tests showed issues with landing stability and heat shield integrity. They fixed those not by redesigning from scratch but by tweaking based on what broke.

You’re right that stress levels should stay within design parameters if everything’s calculated perfectly. But “perfect” is elusive when you’re pushing boundaries—new alloys, insane thrust-to-weight ratios, or reentry at hypersonic speeds. SpaceX bets on overbuilding slightly, testing to destruction, and then optimizing. It’s less about the initial design being “wrong” and more about discovering where the real limits are. Think of it like stress-testing a bridge by driving heavier and heavier trucks over it until it cracks—except here, the “crack” is a fireball in the Texas sky.

Now, why not bring in an external review body, like Titan’s owners should’ve? Fair question. SpaceX does have oversight—FAA regulations, NASA contracts (e.g., Crew Dragon had to meet strict safety standards), and internal peer reviews. But Musk’s teams prioritize speed and autonomy over external validation. A third-party review could slow things down, add bureaucracy, and dilute the “fail fast” ethos. Titan’s failure was a different beast—unproven tech, no redundancy, and hubris without rigorous testing or oversight. SpaceX at least tests, even if it’s loud and messy.

Your Thailand cave submersible jab hits a mark—Musk’s mini-sub idea was impractical (too big, rigid for tight caves) and smelled like a PR stunt. It shows his tendency to jump in with tech solutions without full context. But that’s not the norm for SpaceX’s rocket program, where failures are deliberate steps, not reckless gambles.

So, the logic isn’t “blow stuff up for fun.” It’s “blow stuff up to learn faster than the other guy.” Whether that’s the best approach—versus, say, more simulation and external audits—is debatable. It’s worked for cutting launch costs (Falcon 9’s reusability) and rapid progress (Starship’s pace). But if you’re skeptical of the chaos, that’s fair—engineering rigor can feel at odds with explosions.

It’s all about speed as musk sees a short window of opportunity to make the Mars trips happen before either funding runs out or some other thing stops him

 

[Osvaldorama]

All checked and verified to my satisfaction, the truth is out there you choose to ignore it, your opinion is worth sweet **** all. The FAA will grant flight licenses when they're satisfied the faults that caused the failures in January and last Thursday are identified and rectified. You magnify your ignorance every time you post. I'm done with this you've been proved wrong yet again. Apologies are due for your incorrect and insulting posts.

You’re just upset because your lies have been found out. Stop pretending to be an engineer

 

[ChilcoSaint]

SpaceX’s philosophy isn’t about ignoring sound design or material selection. It’s rooted in a development strategy called “rapid iteration” or “test-driven engineering.” The idea is to build, test, fail fast, and learn quickly—rather than spending years perfecting a design on paper only to find out it doesn’t work in the real world. Traditional aerospace (think NASA’s Apollo era or Boeing) leaned heavily on exhaustive upfront analysis, simulations, and peer reviews to ensure nothing failed. That worked for one-off missions with massive budgets and zero tolerance for failure. SpaceX, though, is chasing reusable rockets and drastically lower launch costs, which demands a different mindset.

The logic here is practical: real-world data trumps theoretical models. Even with a “sound” design and correctly selected materials, unexpected stresses, manufacturing flaws, or edge cases can emerge during flight. Simulations are great, but they’re only as good as the assumptions you feed them. By launching prototypes—like Starship—and letting them explode (controlled or not), SpaceX gathers telemetry and failure data you can’t replicate in a lab. For example, the first few Starship tests showed issues with landing stability and heat shield integrity. They fixed those not by redesigning from scratch but by tweaking based on what broke.

You’re right that stress levels should stay within design parameters if everything’s calculated perfectly. But “perfect” is elusive when you’re pushing boundaries—new alloys, insane thrust-to-weight ratios, or reentry at hypersonic speeds. SpaceX bets on overbuilding slightly, testing to destruction, and then optimizing. It’s less about the initial design being “wrong” and more about discovering where the real limits are. Think of it like stress-testing a bridge by driving heavier and heavier trucks over it until it cracks—except here, the “crack” is a fireball in the Texas sky.

Now, why not bring in an external review body, like Titan’s owners should’ve? Fair question. SpaceX does have oversight—FAA regulations, NASA contracts (e.g., Crew Dragon had to meet strict safety standards), and internal peer reviews. But Musk’s teams prioritize speed and autonomy over external validation. A third-party review could slow things down, add bureaucracy, and dilute the “fail fast” ethos. Titan’s failure was a different beast—unproven tech, no redundancy, and hubris without rigorous testing or oversight. SpaceX at least tests, even if it’s loud and messy.

Your Thailand cave submersible jab hits a mark—Musk’s mini-sub idea was impractical (too big, rigid for tight caves) and smelled like a PR stunt. It shows his tendency to jump in with tech solutions without full context. But that’s not the norm for SpaceX’s rocket program, where failures are deliberate steps, not reckless gambles.

So, the logic isn’t “blow stuff up for fun.” It’s “blow stuff up to learn faster than the other guy.” Whether that’s the best approach—versus, say, more simulation and external audits—is debatable. It’s worked for cutting launch costs (Falcon 9’s reusability) and rapid progress (Starship’s pace). But if you’re skeptical of the chaos, that’s fair—engineering rigor can feel at odds with explosions.

It’s all about speed as musk sees a short window of opportunity to make the Mars trips happen before either funding runs out or some other thing stops him

Good morning Mr Grok

 

[Ian Thumwood]

I’ve seen this talking point from lefty’s quite a lot. And it does make me laugh.

If you think his engineering accomplishments are in some way easy, you’ve clearly never managed or led an engineering company. Or any company for that matter.

If all he does is exploit people and take the plaudits, why has he successfully created multiple billion dollar companies and revolutionised multiple industries?

What industry’s have YOU disrupted that you can pass judgement and throw insults?

I think you are a ****

 

[saintrichie123]

SpaceX’s philosophy isn’t about ignoring sound design or material selection. It’s rooted in a development strategy called “rapid iteration” or “test-driven engineering.” The idea is to build, test, fail fast, and learn quickly—rather than spending years perfecting a design on paper only to find out it doesn’t work in the real world. Traditional aerospace (think NASA’s Apollo era or Boeing) leaned heavily on exhaustive upfront analysis, simulations, and peer reviews to ensure nothing failed. That worked for one-off missions with massive budgets and zero tolerance for failure. SpaceX, though, is chasing reusable rockets and drastically lower launch costs, which demands a different mindset.

The logic here is practical: real-world data trumps theoretical models. Even with a “sound” design and correctly selected materials, unexpected stresses, manufacturing flaws, or edge cases can emerge during flight. Simulations are great, but they’re only as good as the assumptions you feed them. By launching prototypes—like Starship—and letting them explode (controlled or not), SpaceX gathers telemetry and failure data you can’t replicate in a lab. For example, the first few Starship tests showed issues with landing stability and heat shield integrity. They fixed those not by redesigning from scratch but by tweaking based on what broke.

You’re right that stress levels should stay within design parameters if everything’s calculated perfectly. But “perfect” is elusive when you’re pushing boundaries—new alloys, insane thrust-to-weight ratios, or reentry at hypersonic speeds. SpaceX bets on overbuilding slightly, testing to destruction, and then optimizing. It’s less about the initial design being “wrong” and more about discovering where the real limits are. Think of it like stress-testing a bridge by driving heavier and heavier trucks over it until it cracks—except here, the “crack” is a fireball in the Texas sky.

Now, why not bring in an external review body, like Titan’s owners should’ve? Fair question. SpaceX does have oversight—FAA regulations, NASA contracts (e.g., Crew Dragon had to meet strict safety standards), and internal peer reviews. But Musk’s teams prioritize speed and autonomy over external validation. A third-party review could slow things down, add bureaucracy, and dilute the “fail fast” ethos. Titan’s failure was a different beast—unproven tech, no redundancy, and hubris without rigorous testing or oversight. SpaceX at least tests, even if it’s loud and messy.

Your Thailand cave submersible jab hits a mark—Musk’s mini-sub idea was impractical (too big, rigid for tight caves) and smelled like a PR stunt. It shows his tendency to jump in with tech solutions without full context. But that’s not the norm for SpaceX’s rocket program, where failures are deliberate steps, not reckless gambles.

So, the logic isn’t “blow stuff up for fun.” It’s “blow stuff up to learn faster than the other guy.” Whether that’s the best approach—versus, say, more simulation and external audits—is debatable. It’s worked for cutting launch costs (Falcon 9’s reusability) and rapid progress (Starship’s pace). But if you’re skeptical of the chaos, that’s fair—engineering rigor can feel at odds with explosions.

It’s all about speed as musk sees a short window of opportunity to make the Mars trips happen before either funding runs out or some other thing stops him

So obviously copy and pasted from Grok

 

[......loading......]

I know Grok’s voice well. Love that guy! I hope Os only posts Grok from now on.