In the space shuttle disasters the hardware had at least been used more than once. A huge lot of this one is only tried and tested on paper.

And the idea that 'if we throw this much money at it, it really must be fine' I don't buy either. Look at how that worked out for Boeing.

For all my feelings about Musk I would much rather step into a rocket that has exploded in all kinds of imaginable situations before so they know how the materials and design actually behave in real world scenarios. I do really think that is the way to go.

▲

randomNumber7 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> For all my feelings about Musk I would much rather step into a rocket

Definitely, but we still have to figure out if Musk is such a genious or NASA is full of retards.

▲

wolvoleo an hour ago | parent [-]

Neither is true IMO but musk just picked the right development model.

Big space never did this because the current megaproject cost plus is just what they want, a blank check.

Witn SpaceX Musk was mainly wasting his own money especially in the beginning. So it made sense. It just makes sense, it's not even a 'shortcut'.

Ps yes he did get some grants but not beefy unlimited ones.

	▲	chasd00 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Another thing SpaceX has going for it is when their tests fail everyone just points and laughs at Musk. When a NASA launch fails the taxpayers don't want to pay for it any longer.