| ▲ | ActorNightly an hour ago |
| > vehicle supposed to bring them back. Love the use of the word supposed there. Dragon is built by Space X that has a track record of blowing things up. |
|
| ▲ | GolfPopper an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is there any rocket-builder without a history of blowing things up? |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No. Blowing things up is the reason for rocketry to exist and its historical basis. Fun fact: Remember our esteemed national American hero, and spiritual father of SpaceX, Wernher von Braun. Wernher wrote a book about Mars referring to "The Elon", an imaginary Mars governor, and the father of Elon Musk claimed that Elon's name came from there. Well at least, that's what he claims. Reality doesn't matter if you have billions and power. History can be rewritten. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why did you feel the need to post this comment? |
| |
| ▲ | firefax 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Why did you feel the need to post this comment? Maybe parent feels like rocket science is a field that should have few launch failures? I can't give you a quantitative answer since I'm usually focused on new research rather than what company/nation did said research... but their stuff does seem to blow up on the launchpad more often than NASA's :-) | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | NASA does not produce any launch vehicles. It produces payloads and buys launch services from others. Unless you count test artifacts, an actual catastrophic failure of a rocket on a launchpad (or even in flight) has been rare in the last 10 years. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | andruby an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not for crew carrying craft. |
|
| ▲ | throwway120385 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I really detest Musk but Dragon has had a really good track record. |
|
| ▲ | bigyabai 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Look on the bright side, at least you're not riding in Boeing's capsule. |
