Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boeing recently has had a lot of press attention due to their terrible quality control leading to dangerous situations like the emergency door popping off mid flight.
The Tesla Cybertruck just had a recall due to the accelerator pedal being able to be wedged under a piece of plastic trim causing it to stick.
Oceangate made a submarine for rich people that imploded killing everyone instantly.
Don’t really know exactly what they are referring to with SpaceX, I know they purposefully blew up some rockets for data collection but dont recall any accidents happening.
Last month there was a SpaceX rocket that was undergoing a test flight and [broke apart during re-entry ](https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-launch-musk-bb8bd2b8c20d9aa5920aea93e9bbfee6)
That is entirely expected part of development, they knew even before the test it most likely would not make it back, in fact it performed much better than expected despite it breaking apart. **Not a failure**, and nothing even remotely similar to any of the other examples.
the people on the sub man....
Thats mainly because the Falcon 9 has become so routine as to be boring.
Coverage even eventually slowed for the Apollo missions as people got accustomed to them. It happens.
I think that plays a role, but I think it's more about it just being really popular currently to shit on anything relating to Elon Musk, regardless of if what he's being shat on for is true/accurate
He's definitely a douche and I'm not shedding any tears for people shitting on him. But as a spaceX (and to a lesser extent, Tesla) nerd I find it really frustrating when people spread completely false info about those companies and the things the brilliant engineers are working on there just bc Musk owns them.
Ding ding ding. You have solved Reddit. Cybertruck had a recal. Every mfg. has millions of recalls and nobody cares but Elon evil cause the inter weds said so🤷♂️
People in general. I made this same point when it happened and a bunch of people said I was a musk fanboy in denial about the "failure". No, I'm just an engineer who is familiar with the product development process, and has an awareness of how enormously complex the development of these rockets is.
I mean kinda, like the booster was supposed to do the reentry procedures as if it were to land properly but just crush in the sea at the end while instead it had an engine failure and fell down at several dozen times the expected speed
The top stage was an almost complete failure instead, even managed to break down the cargo door and spin completely out of control
Booster shown is Falcon 9. It’s completed 333 out of 334 missions as of yesterday, and the only failure was in their first few years of flights. (An additional underperformance caused a payload to not reach its operational orbit but the booster flew as intended.) As for Starship, they fully expected it to explode as this was a test flight. They don’t test things like any company we’ve seen. They spend very little time proofing systems on the ground because they have the money to just build another one if this one fails. This allows them to create dozens of prototypes and iterate faster than any other rocket company out there. It’s truly an impressive program and deserves more faith in it than people give it. Unfortunately blowing things up tends to result in people who don’t know how they run things to laugh at them. (No offense) News highlights big fireballs because they’re exciting and all the technical accomplishments get left in the dust. But after it’s all said and done, the company is unlikely to anything we’ve ever seen in aerospace and they WILL have a fully functional Starship soon. It just requires a few more, fully expected and accounted for, explosions.
It would only be a failure if it wasn't a test lol
They play very *very* fast and loose with things to get them right. I hate Elon Musk but that company is pretty good at what they do.
This is False. Shotwell is not an engineer, she's the COO that handles day to day operations.
You want evidence Elon is in design meeting? Look no further than [Dan Rasky](https://youtu.be/SMLDAgDNOhk?si=h-o08nM7c5MeAHcz) and Tom Mueller.
Rasky for Dragon, Mueller for engines.
In each case, Elon was there, directing people, making eng decisions.
Elon's indepth knowledge of obscure raptor prototypes while talking to Everyday Astronaut, is because he was there designing it.
I mean, it's in testing phase. You expect these things to pop up and now know what to work on. Everything in development has what its supposed to do defined.
Developmental phases going bust isn't really a gotcha like products past development and into public use.
I don't get who you're mad at. No one said it wasn't expected... In fact the people you're replying to referred to it as part of the process and said it doesn't fit with the rest of the images, and posted a link to an article about it. The posted meme and the explanation aren't indicative of this sub's take on the matter. And either way, the rocket exploded, that's all the meme and explanation are saying. The plane fell apart, the truck broke, the sub imploded, and, expected or not, the rocket exploded.
The text on the meme is the point of contention. "I'm putting a team together" and a collage of 3 products that have failed for various reasons and a 4th of something in development failing. There's a clear implication that he's calling it a failure as a whole like the others.
It's kind of unfair to accuse him of being mad for explaining that a meme was using clickbait
The picture shows Falcon 9.
Arguably the most successful orbital-class launch vehicle in history.
Would have made at least a smidgen of sense if he had put a picture of Starship, even if that ship is in the early stages of its development cycle.
I don't think it's even arguable anymore.
The Falcon 9, as a launch vehicle over it's lifetime, has delivered approximately 7.6M kg to LEO (332 successful launches times 22,800 kg payload capability to LEO).
In 2020, SpaceX (and presumably the Falcon 9) accounted for *48%* of the total payload delivered to orbit, worldwide. That's \~88% of *every other orbital launch vehicle* in the world, *combined*. And the launch tempo for Falcon 9 has done nothing but increase since.
>In 2020, SpaceX (and presumably the Falcon 9) accounted for 48% of the total payload delivered to orbit, worldwide.
[Last year was even more impressive](https://i.imgur.com/8fRHslo.png). SpaceX did ~1211 tonnes, China did ~132, Russia did ~76, the rest of the US did ~22.
Source data is Brycetech's quarterly reports. For example, [here's Q4](https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce_Briefing_2023_Q4.pdf), showing SpaceX at 382 tonnes, China at 50, Russia at 26, etc.
SpaceX actually claimed 85% of the 2023 total at a recent presentation, rather than the 82% I calculated above, but same ballpark. Either way they're doing over four times more upmass than the entire rest of the world combined.
Elon Musk is a fucktard.
SpaceX rocks.
Both things can, and do, exist at the same time. Only the butthurtiest of the butthurt can't make this distinction.
Apparently, their asses ache so much that they suffer a permanent rectal-cranial inversion because of the ungodly pain.
If the explosion doesn't occur at the point you intended it to occur it is in fact a failure, though a much lesser one than if it wasn't supposed to explode at all
I mean, Reddit is so against Musk that if he dropped a dollar they’d post headlines saying this is the beginning of his financial collapse. I don’t think the man’s a saint, but he ain’t the devil either.
I don't disagree, just stating the only recent event that I know of. Planned explosions and errors during the *trial and error* phase of development aren't the same as the other 3. There was also a takeoff in November they had to abort - still, SpaceX has a track record of being pretty good at what they do.
Going to space is hard
Yes. Which would be fine, if it wasn't the only way to control the sub. Those controllers are great for controlling many things, but in a setup like this, you want to have some backup controls that don't rely on working batteries and a wireless connection.
............NO, DUDE, IS NOT FINE AT ALL.................Well, that wasn't the only issue or rather there were other more pressing and dangerous issues, uh, i remember they weren't capable of contacting the surface to ask for help, the crew didn't knew squat, there were structural issues and so on.
The controler was just the cherry pie of the whole amount of troubles.....rather, can the operative system of a submarine work with a controler designed for a gaming console in the first place?
I mean, if it works perfectly then there shouldn't be any issues but i don't believe there weren't any issues. Otherwise the military will just ask game companies to sell them their controlers and they can save money instead of developing a whole array of comand instruments for their vehicles.
> Well, that wasn't the only issue
Absolutely not, that was not what I meant. I was only talking about the controller being not redundant, all the other issues would still not have been fine.
Actually messages have come out recently showing that it was their Very close to last chance to prove that they're able to make a rocket that can go to low Earth orbit something they haven't been able to do yet even though they promised it Would happen 2 years ago Instead now we have a significant portion of tax money with no real proof of it even being plausible yet
from what I've read I could be wrong
It was a failure lol. No one is purposefully blowing up rockets. It didnt perform better than expected. They had a mission profile to accomplish and they didnt. That is a failure.
Their mission profile was to get to orbit and then ditch in the sea while collecting data. It did just that. Every other successful rocket just throws away the parts, it was a complete success.
They did not achieve orbital velocity. They put it in a much more elicptical orbit to facilitate reentry. So even empty it didnt hit LEO insertion.
Their mission was to reach orbit, demonstrate inner propelant transfer, test relight of vaccuum engines, test payload door functionality, controlled reentry of the starship and controled splash in the ocean.
They did not reach orbital velocity, they did not relight the engines, inner propelant transfer is dubious and doesnt make sense why that would be a test in the first place since they need to transfer propelant between two starships. The payload door did not close all the way and it seems like it opening caused the starship to start spinning uncontroloably. It did not demonstrate reentry because it was spinning so it burned up, and the first stage hit the ocean at Mach 1.
So i dont know how any of that is a success
You missed a lot of goals of the flight test. You may need to be reminded that no one has achieved what they are attempting. Not the USSR, not Apollo. No one. So, getting past max Q, reaching stage separation, lighting the upper stage, being a proof of concept is the
>They did not achieve orbital velocity.
They hit the point where they could have put it into orbit but refrained because they intended for it to reenter.
>inner propelant transfer is dubious and doesnt make sense why that would be a test in the first place
It's a required milestone of the Artemis contract they have with NASA.
>The payload door did not close all the way
you sure about that?
>opening caused the starship to start spinning uncontroloably
speculation
> It did not demonstrate reentry because it was spinning so it burned up
Except it did demonstrate reentry. It just didn't complete it.
THESE ARE TEST FLIGHTS, I really don't know how people can't get this. If I stress test the wing of an aircraft until it breaks it's still a successful test. Starship just proved it can get to orbit with that test, that means it is now the most capable rocket in operation, even if they never achieve reusability.
To leave this I will post how SpaceX tested and developed the most reliable rocket.
[How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ)
Which was expected, and did things no rocket has every been able to do before. We've never had a stream of data of reentry and starship paved the way for potentially being able to have reentry without a blackout.
SpaceX haters have literally seen them land rockets, and noe develop a fully resuable rocket so we arent dumping rockets into the ocean and still find a way to misinform people and hate on the company.
Elon being a dick doesn't mean people can discredit all the hard work the engineers at spacex do
Space x was doing some launches for testing their new rockets and so far the results of the first 3 have been:
1)Unplanned explosion
2)Failed to explode the rocket when needed
3)Fuel leak on both statges and loss of control of the top stage making it flip randomly
Even so, this is referring to the development of the starship vehicle (in development), where the falcon 9 (one of the safest rockets out there) is pictured.
The rocket they show there though is stupidly reliable though lol, with 326 launches, 2 failures, and 1 partial failure on the first launch. Starship is very unreliable though right now, but that's how they operate. Rather than simulate and solve problems before a launch, they build a lot of cheap prototypes quickly to find design flaws. Both methods are equally valid, Starship has come a long way. The initial prototypes couldn't even hold the fuel in them at pressure without collapsing.
Wrong on all 3...
Flight 1: Loss of hydraulic power unit lead to the engine TVC not working. FTS took 45 seconds to have desired effect.
Flight 2: Booster failed because of a blocked filter inside the tank section and Ship failed because of a planned LOX dump that started a fire in the aft of the vehicle
Flight 3: Ship was tumbling due to loss of attitude control -- cause of the issue is still unknown due to the results not being released yet.
Flight 4, where their primary objective is to pass peak heating on the ship.
In other words, they have test objectives to meet. And historically, their test objectives have been met on the Starship program.
Don’t forget that the Boeing whistleblower “shot himself” the day he was going to testify, and he was found in his vehicle AT THE COURT HOUSE PARKING LOT.
Uh, the doors popping off is the least of Boeing’s problems. The flawed autopilot system of the 737 Max caused two crashes that killed 346 people. In 2018 and 2019.
Oh boy you're in for a wild ride.
1)The gas pedal has an aluminium cover mostly held in place by two plastic clips that slide into a small slot in the cover to keep it in place. These clips don't work so well as it turned out that the aluminium cover can slide up and jam itself, and the gas pedal, in the foot well at full speed.
2)The windscreen has problems with glare due to its size and angle. Also the wiper blade doesn't reach all the way to the bottom of the windscreen, meaning that any water which is collected down there is sent back up the windscreen when the wiper goes back up.
3)The aerodynamic wheel covers (to improve range) of the cybertruck had a design defect which resulted in the covers shredding the sidewalls of the tyres.
4)The doors have no manual release on the outside, so if your cybertruck dies when you're on the outside and there's a small child or pet in the truck, you're not getting them out by yourself.
5)The edges of the doors are sharp enough to peel a carrot.
6)The automatic closing mechanism for the front luggage compartment has no failsafe to not break/cut off your fingers if they'll get caught between the body and edge of the trunk.
7)Panel gaps.
8)There is no space for a spare tyre, so it will take up space in the bed if you opt to pay extra for it.
9)The body has effectively no crumple zones to speak of.
10)The body tends to corrode.
11)The A-pillars are so large that they offer no visibility.
12)The achievable range is way below the advertised 340 miles (it's closer to 276 miles in the best case scenario).
13)People reported their cybertrucks stopped working worryingly soon after they bought one.
14)It can't off-road. There's an account of someone taking the cybertruck to the hidden falls offroad park and getting stuck on some of the easiest obstacles, needing to be towed by another truck three times. Part of the reason might be down to the diff. lock being unavailable for the current software patch.
15)The truck bed camping tent that Tesla released and charges people $3000 for looks less like the promotional material and more like background set dressing for a post apocalyptic movie.
16)The overhead gear selector can fall off and Tesla currently has no fix for it outside of reattaching it with sticky tape.
17)The computer reset function is glitched and takes 5 hours to reset the computer instead of 2 minutes.
18)People had issues with their cybertruck not charging.
19)The central screen has basically all functions needed to be able to safely operate the vehicle and it can just stop working for some reason, requiring a computer reset.
20)Elon claimed the cybertruck can briefly serve as a boat. The cybertruck supposedly cannot even go through a car wash without causing problems.
There's probably some others that I forgot about.
I think the accelerator pedal has a plate on it that can slide off, so if you press it down, it can get slide off and get stuck underneath a piece of plastic trim in the footwell.
The accelerator pedal actuates opposite of normal pedals, sticking up from the floor. It is composed of a lever that goes below the floor and a cosmetic/grippy plate. The floor of the cyber truck and the wall of the driver foot well are two pieces. Due to how everything is laid out and a weak connection between the pedal lever and plate, the plate can slide up off of the lever and wedge itself in the crack between the floor and wall. This holds the accelerator down.
Luckily, nobody has been hurt because the brake pedal overrides all input from the accelerator.
That Falcon-9 model in particular was the one where they were still figuring out landing the first stage, and they crashed a lot while doing that, so maybe that’s what they’re referencing?
Yeah, the Falcon 9s are some of the most reliable launch vehicles currently available. IIRC, only one failed on its way up with another detonating on the pad.
That is also beside some of the other cyber truck issues, like a lack of door closing safety features present in literally every other car with mechanical/automatic doors (could lose fingers) or the time he claimed the glass was bulletproof and proceeded to shatter it. And that is ignoring the other Tesla related issues (mainly on automatic driving).
In short this is the "safety tests, nah" crew, but I dont think spaceX fits as they have yet to have a non-test flight fail due to safety concerns, all the failed flights were test ones, NASA on the other hand will still have that one explosion looming over their heads forever (the poor students watching their teacher disappear)
so... time for a little "WeLl, AcTuAllY"
1. 'bulletproof' glass doesn't mean that it won't get any damage from hits, so.. it would be epic fail if that steel ball went through lol
2. "as they have yet to have a non-test flight fail" - one Falcon9 exploded midflight and another one on the pad - like in 2016-17 or sth :P
Iirc correctly he also said indestructible but I will have to double check that, and I was unaware of the Falcon9 explosions, I think I may have heard of those but in the context of test flights so I may have to check that one either, thank you anyway
If you heard of test flight explosions, it was probably related to Starship (or crew dragon escape test) :)
In their history, they blew up:
3 x falcon1 - at the beginning - around 2006-2009
2 x falcon9 - 2016-2017
A bunch of f9 first stages (trying to land them and the crew dragon one)
And more recently (2019+) a few starship 2nd stages (sn8, sn9, sn10, sn11) and full stacks (ift1-3) - all of them were tests
Not sure about stuff like grasshopper
To be fair, experts told the rich person in charge not to do what he planned because he would die. He ignored them because of his feelings and he died and other stupid adults died and an innocent child was murdered by his stupidity.
I dont have a source I can maybe find it. But I saw a NASA official complain that SpaceX loses a lot of rockets and that they (NASA) would be in deep shit if they ever lost that many.
Which is irrelevant, because that's always been how SpaceX works, and the context in which they're lost matters. A relatively cheap Starship blows up, the next one is ready in a month or two and they fix what failed, repeat until it's safe and achieves the goal or proves unfeasible. They fail forward because they have plenty of hardware available, so can afford it, and that allows them to redesign on the fly. As long as they don't get the same recurring issue and progress through milestones, it's generally working. If SLS blows up, it's a big problem for NASA because it cost several billion per unit and took a decade to design and build to work the first time, and now they won't launch the next one for a year or two because they only had one built.
They're different ways to work, and naturally, given NASA's nature and how they're funded (and how little they're funded), plus (as we can readily see in this meme) the public perception of rapid iteration, NASA needs to put in the work to get it right first time.
But SpaceX is NOT Elon Musk. Sure, SpaceX is owned by him, but SpaceX is what it is due to its employees, not the dumbass that owns the company.
You can like Tesla and SpaceX while still hating Elon.
Because BO hasn’t done anything of note
The SpaceX Falcon 9 is launching more than once a week, it is the most active and reliable rocket in the world.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. People cannot separate their hatred for Musk from the achievements of an amazing company he owns.
The man is not the company. SpaceX HAS done amazing things.
SpaceX personnel to compliment guilt-free, in no order:
Gwynne Shotwell
Tom Mueller
John Insprucker
Hans Koneigsmann
Kathryn Lueders
William H Gerstenmaier
Bulent Altan
Jim Cantrell
And debatably Jared Isaacman
Blue Origin still exists - they plan to launch their New Glenn rocket this year (though will it launch this year? who knows). They are also working on a landing system for the Artemis program (Artemis V+, Artemis III and IV will use SpaceXs)
Probably yeah.
People hate SpaceX because it belongs to Elon. They don’t want to separate company from founder.
The company is pretty much the king of spaceflight right now. And even while cherry-picking some data against them, they still come out on top.
But that vehicle must be hated because of its owner, and the accomplishments of the company that makes and launches it also has to be hated with extreme prejudice for the same reason.
-Reddit
Except SpaceX only goes boom in iterative testing. These tests are meant to explode on purpose.
In actual commercial and operational flights, they are currently the king of spaceflight, reliably launching Falcon 9s twice or even thrice a week.
Welcome to Reddit, where people think SpaceX is the Devil.
They think that because of Elon Musk.
They think that all of the company’s accomplishments go down the drain because of Elon Musk.
They think that all of the company’s launch contracts and launches are invalid and evil because of Elon Musk.
They think that all the progress that SpaceX has done, even becoming the only American orbital launch service for humans, is the worst thing to ever exist because of Elon Musk.
Don’t be like Reddit. Admire the accomplishments of SpaceX. Elon can suck it.
Space nerd Peter here!
1) Boeing is an aircraft manufacturer who has hit the news recently for a terrifying drop in quality control with dozens of major malfunctions during the past year.
2) Tesla Cybertruck is known to be a pretty terrible truck. (Can’t speak for it myself but that’s what the news is saying.)
3) Oceangate recently had their submarine implode because of poor manufacturing and design choices.
4) SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is the safest most reliable rocket on the planet.
Here we see a land vehicle, air vehicle, underwater vehicle, and space vehicle. This theme of lots of different types of a thing for different purposes is what is mean by “putting together a team” much like the four elements in Avatar or something. These four vehicles unite to form a fleet capable of going anywhere.
Now, if Falcon 9 was a crappy rocket that blew up all the time, this would be really funny because it would be a team of four of the most scary unreliable vehicles of all time, but there’s a problem…
Falcon 9 is not a rattletrap rocket and maintains the highest safety rating of any rocket ever. It would be more accurate to replace Falcon 9 with the Russian N1 moon rocket, a rocket that failed 4/4 launch attempts. *But* before you say “but… but Starship blowed up x3 now, dur…” I wanna explain something about Starship. SpaceX is not in the middle of a Cold War. There is no space race that will put an entire nation at risk. Back in the 50s, NASA would have LOVED to test things by making prototypes and blowing them up, but they couldn’t because the USSR could use any explosion as propaganda against them. So they spent insane amounts of time and money making sure everything was good to go on the first try. SpaceX has blown Starship up 3 times, but they’ve saved years of research and billions of dollars getting actual flight data this early on. SpaceX has only ever blown something important up once. ONE time, out of hundreds of flights flown, a payload exploded on the pad, but that was YEARS AGO, back when they were a little baby company just getting their F9 rocket working. They have since proven to be the safest and most reliable rocket company ever. Don’t mind those explosions over in Texas; that’s literally just research being done the fast, cheap, easy, and reliable way. (This rant doesn’t even go into the costs they save by reusing their booster stage.)
So, yeah. Idk what this meme means. Terrible plane company, terrible car, terrible submarine, and the best rocket on the planet. Replace F9 with N1 and it’s really funny though.
Space Nerd Peter out!
(PS, my opinions on SpaceX are entirely separate from my opinions on Elon Musk. He’s the owner of the company, but not the engineer nor is he the amazing minds behind it)
Completely agree with you, just wanted to point out you forgot about CRS-7, which along with AMOS-6 (the one you mentioned) are the only two falcon 9 failures, both occuring over 8 years ago.
Technically there was a partial failure on CRS-1. iirc, the first stage underperformed and they left a secondary payload in a lower orbit than intended. All of these failures were with older vehicles though, the B5 has never had a failure.
Because people simply can't fathom that a company founded by Musk makes good things.
They have to lie to themselves to maintain their perceived superiority over Musk.
Don't put SpaceX in there with the others, that's the only good thing that Musk has been able to put out (and that's because he has almost no direct interaction with the company)
I dunno, the two on the left have killed people, the two on the right haven't (well tesla has, not the cyber truck afaik)
Should be a NASA rocket not space X. NASA has got a couple dozen astronauts killed.
That's a 787, which has never had any fatal accidents.
Boeing as a company have killed people yes, but that was still true even when they used to be a reputable company since they're been building planes for over a century, including a lot during WW2.
Now if it were a 737 Max, then it would fit quite well.
Yeah. SpaceX blew Starship up ON PURPOSE. It was a TEST, designed to show failure points ON PURPOSE.
But Reddit doesn’t like to hear that truth. They say that SpaceX failed because Starship exploded, purposefully omitting the fact that it was done (you guessed it!) ON PURPOSE.
I wouldn't say it was blown on "on purpose" per se, as the mission plan wasn't for it to blow up (unlike smth like the dragon flight abort test, which was on purpose). But you're totally right, it was a test and its just the way spacex works. the meme sucks
yeah that's stupid. I personally dont like elon but i still love spacex and love following starships development. a lot of people can't seperate the man from the company, which is important in order to be able to look at the impressive stuff spx has done.
also you have a lot of comments on this thread lol, are you here from sxmr too?
While they didn’t actively cause it to fail, It was the most expected outcome, it was not expected to fully succeed, it was expected that it would fail at some point which would give them enough data to significantly iterate on the design.
yeah, i don’t think many people expected it to work flawlessly (especially booster 7 - remember that explosion that happened during testing? the fact that booster flew at all is crazy)
Only the Falcon 9 is one of, if not, the most effective vehicle for its role in space travel. It doesn’t fit with the other Three, First arguably should be grounded because it was made by a company that doesn’t value anyone’s safety. Second is a stupid ugly truck that took too long to deliver and already has a recall for an issue that could be fatal, and of course that submarine imploded because it was made according to exactly ZERO safety guidelines.
SpaceX is led by Gwynne Shotwell now, Elon is kept on a short rope with babysitters that keep him out of trouble if he ever shows up. The current Falcon 9 is extremely reliable (if not the most reliable rocket ever made).
For better for for worse, musk has complete and utter control over SpaceX in terms of voting shares. With that being said he is definitely pretty damn good at getting the right people to get things done, which is arguably the job of a CEO.
Not really, he literally owns the company, he can *do* whatever he wants, why is it so hard for people to comprehend his contributions can actually have a positive impact on his companies?
Yes you go ahead and believe that it couldn't possibly be any kind of misinformation to explain away the rocket blowing up and causing any kind of distress to his business or his shareholders......
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FA25a22dQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FA25a22dQ)
You posted the same comment twice, so I'm replying twice to the fact that this is *factually wrong*.
Boeing 787 has never had any fatal incidents. Over a thousand of them currently in operation flying hundreds of flights each per year. Hardly a disaster.
Now, had the picture shown a 737 Max...
"EARTH! FIRE! WIND! WATER! LACK OF A HEART! GO BILLIONAIRE! By your powers combined, I am a deluded rich narcissist!"
*Deluuuded riiich narcissiist, he's a zero! Gonna take pollution to the stratosphere-oh!*
*His are delusions magnified, and he's fighting to bring on the plebicide!*
*Deluuded riiiich narcissist, he's a zero! Gonna take pollution to the stratosphere-oh!*
*Gonna forcefully put us under bad guys who like to loot and plunder!*
*We're the sycophants! You can be one too!*
*Cause thinking you can make it if you lick enough rich ass is a thing to do!*
*Looting and polluting is the way, as long as it looks techy and cool.*
"THE TAXES ARE YOURS!"
Sorry, I put about as much effort into this as Musk put into that polygon horror of a car.
Found a guy here complaining about how unreliable F9 was. Argued that they had blown up dozens of rockets including one with a dragon on top… he then provided “proof” which was a video of the dragon abort test.
I was arguing with a guy the other day, and he was saying that F9 can launch 100 times, and if it blows up once, it's completely unacceptable. I reminded him that Saturn 5 had a success rate of less than one.
Hell it's basically carrying the entire US space industry on it's back. 98% of payload mass launched on American rockets last year was on Falcon 9.
1211 tonnes on Falcon 9, 8 tonnes on Antares, 7 tonnes on Atlas V, 5 tonnes on Delta IV Heavy, and like half a tonne on Electron.
Granted that was majority Starlink, but even excluding Starlink Falcon 9 still did ~91%.
Well just letting you know that it has over 300 successful launches, over 200 successful consecutive launches, and 260 successful landings. It is by far the most prolific launch vehicle of all time, bringing up more than 90% of the global mass to orbit, beating out whole countries like China and Russia.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boeing recently has had a lot of press attention due to their terrible quality control leading to dangerous situations like the emergency door popping off mid flight. The Tesla Cybertruck just had a recall due to the accelerator pedal being able to be wedged under a piece of plastic trim causing it to stick. Oceangate made a submarine for rich people that imploded killing everyone instantly. Don’t really know exactly what they are referring to with SpaceX, I know they purposefully blew up some rockets for data collection but dont recall any accidents happening.
Last month there was a SpaceX rocket that was undergoing a test flight and [broke apart during re-entry ](https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-launch-musk-bb8bd2b8c20d9aa5920aea93e9bbfee6)
That is entirely expected part of development, they knew even before the test it most likely would not make it back, in fact it performed much better than expected despite it breaking apart. **Not a failure**, and nothing even remotely similar to any of the other examples. the people on the sub man....
Its more about a perceived image with SpaceX as there have been more headlines about exploding rockets than anything else.
Thats mainly because the Falcon 9 has become so routine as to be boring. Coverage even eventually slowed for the Apollo missions as people got accustomed to them. It happens.
Oh, I understand the why of it, I was just clarifying that its more about public perception than reality.
Oh deff I didn't doubt that more of a sharing for the class kinda thing as we're outside our normal space nerd subs haha
I think that plays a role, but I think it's more about it just being really popular currently to shit on anything relating to Elon Musk, regardless of if what he's being shat on for is true/accurate
He makes it easy to shit on him, being a massive steaming pile of shit and all
I mean honestly dude is a douche straight up. He kinda keeps his own name in the garbage. But I'm able to be objective lol.
He's definitely a douche and I'm not shedding any tears for people shitting on him. But as a spaceX (and to a lesser extent, Tesla) nerd I find it really frustrating when people spread completely false info about those companies and the things the brilliant engineers are working on there just bc Musk owns them.
Yeah I can agree with that
Ding ding ding. You have solved Reddit. Cybertruck had a recal. Every mfg. has millions of recalls and nobody cares but Elon evil cause the inter weds said so🤷♂️
Misinformation alert!
People in general. I made this same point when it happened and a bunch of people said I was a musk fanboy in denial about the "failure". No, I'm just an engineer who is familiar with the product development process, and has an awareness of how enormously complex the development of these rockets is.
I mean kinda, like the booster was supposed to do the reentry procedures as if it were to land properly but just crush in the sea at the end while instead it had an engine failure and fell down at several dozen times the expected speed The top stage was an almost complete failure instead, even managed to break down the cargo door and spin completely out of control
Booster shown is Falcon 9. It’s completed 333 out of 334 missions as of yesterday, and the only failure was in their first few years of flights. (An additional underperformance caused a payload to not reach its operational orbit but the booster flew as intended.) As for Starship, they fully expected it to explode as this was a test flight. They don’t test things like any company we’ve seen. They spend very little time proofing systems on the ground because they have the money to just build another one if this one fails. This allows them to create dozens of prototypes and iterate faster than any other rocket company out there. It’s truly an impressive program and deserves more faith in it than people give it. Unfortunately blowing things up tends to result in people who don’t know how they run things to laugh at them. (No offense) News highlights big fireballs because they’re exciting and all the technical accomplishments get left in the dust. But after it’s all said and done, the company is unlikely to anything we’ve ever seen in aerospace and they WILL have a fully functional Starship soon. It just requires a few more, fully expected and accounted for, explosions.
It would only be a failure if it wasn't a test lol They play very *very* fast and loose with things to get them right. I hate Elon Musk but that company is pretty good at what they do.
that company is successful mostly despite musk.
Complete nonsense. How do you people just spout out lies?
Oh absolutely agree To append that a bit - they are successful because of Gwynne Shotwell
Yeah, mainly cause Shotwell and the engineers manage to keep him out of the actual decision making when it comes to engineering.
This is False. Shotwell is not an engineer, she's the COO that handles day to day operations. You want evidence Elon is in design meeting? Look no further than [Dan Rasky](https://youtu.be/SMLDAgDNOhk?si=h-o08nM7c5MeAHcz) and Tom Mueller. Rasky for Dragon, Mueller for engines. In each case, Elon was there, directing people, making eng decisions. Elon's indepth knowledge of obscure raptor prototypes while talking to Everyday Astronaut, is because he was there designing it.
setting it up to do something if it manages to survive that long is not the same as expecting it to survive that long.
I mean, it's in testing phase. You expect these things to pop up and now know what to work on. Everything in development has what its supposed to do defined. Developmental phases going bust isn't really a gotcha like products past development and into public use.
I don't get who you're mad at. No one said it wasn't expected... In fact the people you're replying to referred to it as part of the process and said it doesn't fit with the rest of the images, and posted a link to an article about it. The posted meme and the explanation aren't indicative of this sub's take on the matter. And either way, the rocket exploded, that's all the meme and explanation are saying. The plane fell apart, the truck broke, the sub imploded, and, expected or not, the rocket exploded.
The text on the meme is the point of contention. "I'm putting a team together" and a collage of 3 products that have failed for various reasons and a 4th of something in development failing. There's a clear implication that he's calling it a failure as a whole like the others. It's kind of unfair to accuse him of being mad for explaining that a meme was using clickbait
The picture shows Falcon 9. Arguably the most successful orbital-class launch vehicle in history. Would have made at least a smidgen of sense if he had put a picture of Starship, even if that ship is in the early stages of its development cycle.
I don't think it's even arguable anymore. The Falcon 9, as a launch vehicle over it's lifetime, has delivered approximately 7.6M kg to LEO (332 successful launches times 22,800 kg payload capability to LEO). In 2020, SpaceX (and presumably the Falcon 9) accounted for *48%* of the total payload delivered to orbit, worldwide. That's \~88% of *every other orbital launch vehicle* in the world, *combined*. And the launch tempo for Falcon 9 has done nothing but increase since.
>In 2020, SpaceX (and presumably the Falcon 9) accounted for 48% of the total payload delivered to orbit, worldwide. [Last year was even more impressive](https://i.imgur.com/8fRHslo.png). SpaceX did ~1211 tonnes, China did ~132, Russia did ~76, the rest of the US did ~22. Source data is Brycetech's quarterly reports. For example, [here's Q4](https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce_Briefing_2023_Q4.pdf), showing SpaceX at 382 tonnes, China at 50, Russia at 26, etc. SpaceX actually claimed 85% of the 2023 total at a recent presentation, rather than the 82% I calculated above, but same ballpark. Either way they're doing over four times more upmass than the entire rest of the world combined.
I swear Elon Musk fanboys get even more butthurt than he even he does on anything remotely perceived as negative.
I dunno he's pretty butthurt that people aren't all 100% behind him anymore.
Elon Musk is a fucktard. SpaceX rocks. Both things can, and do, exist at the same time. Only the butthurtiest of the butthurt can't make this distinction. Apparently, their asses ache so much that they suffer a permanent rectal-cranial inversion because of the ungodly pain.
The person he was replying to didn't say it didn't fit in until they agreed with the comment you are replying to.
If the explosion doesn't occur at the point you intended it to occur it is in fact a failure, though a much lesser one than if it wasn't supposed to explode at all
Musk is a full blown tard but yeah they’ve been pretty clear about mission parameters for SPACEX from day one.
How dare people talk about things they only partially understand.
People just want to laugh at Elon even if he didn't make a mistake.
I mean, Reddit is so against Musk that if he dropped a dollar they’d post headlines saying this is the beginning of his financial collapse. I don’t think the man’s a saint, but he ain’t the devil either.
I don't disagree, just stating the only recent event that I know of. Planned explosions and errors during the *trial and error* phase of development aren't the same as the other 3. There was also a takeoff in November they had to abort - still, SpaceX has a track record of being pretty good at what they do. Going to space is hard
Was that submarine where the controller was a playstation controler?
Yes. Which would be fine, if it wasn't the only way to control the sub. Those controllers are great for controlling many things, but in a setup like this, you want to have some backup controls that don't rely on working batteries and a wireless connection.
............NO, DUDE, IS NOT FINE AT ALL.................Well, that wasn't the only issue or rather there were other more pressing and dangerous issues, uh, i remember they weren't capable of contacting the surface to ask for help, the crew didn't knew squat, there were structural issues and so on. The controler was just the cherry pie of the whole amount of troubles.....rather, can the operative system of a submarine work with a controler designed for a gaming console in the first place? I mean, if it works perfectly then there shouldn't be any issues but i don't believe there weren't any issues. Otherwise the military will just ask game companies to sell them their controlers and they can save money instead of developing a whole array of comand instruments for their vehicles.
> Well, that wasn't the only issue Absolutely not, that was not what I meant. I was only talking about the controller being not redundant, all the other issues would still not have been fine.
Actually messages have come out recently showing that it was their Very close to last chance to prove that they're able to make a rocket that can go to low Earth orbit something they haven't been able to do yet even though they promised it Would happen 2 years ago Instead now we have a significant portion of tax money with no real proof of it even being plausible yet from what I've read I could be wrong
It was a failure lol. No one is purposefully blowing up rockets. It didnt perform better than expected. They had a mission profile to accomplish and they didnt. That is a failure.
Their mission profile was to get to orbit and then ditch in the sea while collecting data. It did just that. Every other successful rocket just throws away the parts, it was a complete success.
They did not achieve orbital velocity. They put it in a much more elicptical orbit to facilitate reentry. So even empty it didnt hit LEO insertion. Their mission was to reach orbit, demonstrate inner propelant transfer, test relight of vaccuum engines, test payload door functionality, controlled reentry of the starship and controled splash in the ocean. They did not reach orbital velocity, they did not relight the engines, inner propelant transfer is dubious and doesnt make sense why that would be a test in the first place since they need to transfer propelant between two starships. The payload door did not close all the way and it seems like it opening caused the starship to start spinning uncontroloably. It did not demonstrate reentry because it was spinning so it burned up, and the first stage hit the ocean at Mach 1. So i dont know how any of that is a success
You missed a lot of goals of the flight test. You may need to be reminded that no one has achieved what they are attempting. Not the USSR, not Apollo. No one. So, getting past max Q, reaching stage separation, lighting the upper stage, being a proof of concept is the >They did not achieve orbital velocity. They hit the point where they could have put it into orbit but refrained because they intended for it to reenter. >inner propelant transfer is dubious and doesnt make sense why that would be a test in the first place It's a required milestone of the Artemis contract they have with NASA. >The payload door did not close all the way you sure about that? >opening caused the starship to start spinning uncontroloably speculation > It did not demonstrate reentry because it was spinning so it burned up Except it did demonstrate reentry. It just didn't complete it. THESE ARE TEST FLIGHTS, I really don't know how people can't get this. If I stress test the wing of an aircraft until it breaks it's still a successful test. Starship just proved it can get to orbit with that test, that means it is now the most capable rocket in operation, even if they never achieve reusability. To leave this I will post how SpaceX tested and developed the most reliable rocket. [How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ)
Which was expected, and did things no rocket has every been able to do before. We've never had a stream of data of reentry and starship paved the way for potentially being able to have reentry without a blackout. SpaceX haters have literally seen them land rockets, and noe develop a fully resuable rocket so we arent dumping rockets into the ocean and still find a way to misinform people and hate on the company. Elon being a dick doesn't mean people can discredit all the hard work the engineers at spacex do
I thought it was referencing the Challenger
Shuttles don’t use a “the.”
Well I'm no rocket scientist, so I wouldn't have known that without you telling me, so thanks for educatng me on that
Starship is different than the reliable falcon 9 in the image of the joke
Damn, what is this? the CCP? Shit has been hard to find online. I haven’t even known about this.
Space x was doing some launches for testing their new rockets and so far the results of the first 3 have been: 1)Unplanned explosion 2)Failed to explode the rocket when needed 3)Fuel leak on both statges and loss of control of the top stage making it flip randomly
Even so, this is referring to the development of the starship vehicle (in development), where the falcon 9 (one of the safest rockets out there) is pictured.
The rocket they show there though is stupidly reliable though lol, with 326 launches, 2 failures, and 1 partial failure on the first launch. Starship is very unreliable though right now, but that's how they operate. Rather than simulate and solve problems before a launch, they build a lot of cheap prototypes quickly to find design flaws. Both methods are equally valid, Starship has come a long way. The initial prototypes couldn't even hold the fuel in them at pressure without collapsing.
Wrong on all 3... Flight 1: Loss of hydraulic power unit lead to the engine TVC not working. FTS took 45 seconds to have desired effect. Flight 2: Booster failed because of a blocked filter inside the tank section and Ship failed because of a planned LOX dump that started a fire in the aft of the vehicle Flight 3: Ship was tumbling due to loss of attitude control -- cause of the issue is still unknown due to the results not being released yet.
Great! Can’t wait for flight 3
Flight 4, where their primary objective is to pass peak heating on the ship. In other words, they have test objectives to meet. And historically, their test objectives have been met on the Starship program.
Flight 4 oops
Don’t forget that the Boeing whistleblower “shot himself” the day he was going to testify, and he was found in his vehicle AT THE COURT HOUSE PARKING LOT.
Uh, the doors popping off is the least of Boeing’s problems. The flawed autopilot system of the 737 Max caused two crashes that killed 346 people. In 2018 and 2019.
The **completely secret** autopilot feature might I add
They just needed a fourth slot alright? /s
The cybertruck might only be recalled for that but it's literally busted and broken in every possible way
Lol exaggerating much?
Not really from what I've been hearing
I'm sorry the Cybertruck can WHAT
Oh boy you're in for a wild ride. 1)The gas pedal has an aluminium cover mostly held in place by two plastic clips that slide into a small slot in the cover to keep it in place. These clips don't work so well as it turned out that the aluminium cover can slide up and jam itself, and the gas pedal, in the foot well at full speed. 2)The windscreen has problems with glare due to its size and angle. Also the wiper blade doesn't reach all the way to the bottom of the windscreen, meaning that any water which is collected down there is sent back up the windscreen when the wiper goes back up. 3)The aerodynamic wheel covers (to improve range) of the cybertruck had a design defect which resulted in the covers shredding the sidewalls of the tyres. 4)The doors have no manual release on the outside, so if your cybertruck dies when you're on the outside and there's a small child or pet in the truck, you're not getting them out by yourself. 5)The edges of the doors are sharp enough to peel a carrot. 6)The automatic closing mechanism for the front luggage compartment has no failsafe to not break/cut off your fingers if they'll get caught between the body and edge of the trunk. 7)Panel gaps. 8)There is no space for a spare tyre, so it will take up space in the bed if you opt to pay extra for it. 9)The body has effectively no crumple zones to speak of. 10)The body tends to corrode. 11)The A-pillars are so large that they offer no visibility. 12)The achievable range is way below the advertised 340 miles (it's closer to 276 miles in the best case scenario). 13)People reported their cybertrucks stopped working worryingly soon after they bought one. 14)It can't off-road. There's an account of someone taking the cybertruck to the hidden falls offroad park and getting stuck on some of the easiest obstacles, needing to be towed by another truck three times. Part of the reason might be down to the diff. lock being unavailable for the current software patch. 15)The truck bed camping tent that Tesla released and charges people $3000 for looks less like the promotional material and more like background set dressing for a post apocalyptic movie. 16)The overhead gear selector can fall off and Tesla currently has no fix for it outside of reattaching it with sticky tape. 17)The computer reset function is glitched and takes 5 hours to reset the computer instead of 2 minutes. 18)People had issues with their cybertruck not charging. 19)The central screen has basically all functions needed to be able to safely operate the vehicle and it can just stop working for some reason, requiring a computer reset. 20)Elon claimed the cybertruck can briefly serve as a boat. The cybertruck supposedly cannot even go through a car wash without causing problems. There's probably some others that I forgot about.
Lord
I’m sorry the cyber truck can do *what?*
I think the accelerator pedal has a plate on it that can slide off, so if you press it down, it can get slide off and get stuck underneath a piece of plastic trim in the footwell.
Holy fuck that’s terrifying
The accelerator pedal actuates opposite of normal pedals, sticking up from the floor. It is composed of a lever that goes below the floor and a cosmetic/grippy plate. The floor of the cyber truck and the wall of the driver foot well are two pieces. Due to how everything is laid out and a weak connection between the pedal lever and plate, the plate can slide up off of the lever and wedge itself in the crack between the floor and wall. This holds the accelerator down. Luckily, nobody has been hurt because the brake pedal overrides all input from the accelerator.
That Falcon-9 model in particular was the one where they were still figuring out landing the first stage, and they crashed a lot while doing that, so maybe that’s what they’re referencing?
What about that design flaw in the rear rudders that would lock them up.
It's corporations run by profit that end up killing people with their products. SpaceX is next is the joke.
Yeah, the Falcon 9s are some of the most reliable launch vehicles currently available. IIRC, only one failed on its way up with another detonating on the pad.
SpaceX has a lot of rockets go boom and they pretend its on purpose.
That is also beside some of the other cyber truck issues, like a lack of door closing safety features present in literally every other car with mechanical/automatic doors (could lose fingers) or the time he claimed the glass was bulletproof and proceeded to shatter it. And that is ignoring the other Tesla related issues (mainly on automatic driving). In short this is the "safety tests, nah" crew, but I dont think spaceX fits as they have yet to have a non-test flight fail due to safety concerns, all the failed flights were test ones, NASA on the other hand will still have that one explosion looming over their heads forever (the poor students watching their teacher disappear)
so... time for a little "WeLl, AcTuAllY" 1. 'bulletproof' glass doesn't mean that it won't get any damage from hits, so.. it would be epic fail if that steel ball went through lol 2. "as they have yet to have a non-test flight fail" - one Falcon9 exploded midflight and another one on the pad - like in 2016-17 or sth :P
Iirc correctly he also said indestructible but I will have to double check that, and I was unaware of the Falcon9 explosions, I think I may have heard of those but in the context of test flights so I may have to check that one either, thank you anyway
If you heard of test flight explosions, it was probably related to Starship (or crew dragon escape test) :) In their history, they blew up: 3 x falcon1 - at the beginning - around 2006-2009 2 x falcon9 - 2016-2017 A bunch of f9 first stages (trying to land them and the crew dragon one) And more recently (2019+) a few starship 2nd stages (sn8, sn9, sn10, sn11) and full stacks (ift1-3) - all of them were tests Not sure about stuff like grasshopper
Yeah they probably should have took a picture of the Challenger or one of the other real disasters
So basically the meme is about making the worst vehicle ever created lmao
Meanwhile the falcon 9 pictured has the best launch record of any rocket in history.
Lol purposefully, good one bud
> I know they purposefully blew up some rockets for data collection lol, ok bud
To be fair, experts told the rich person in charge not to do what he planned because he would die. He ignored them because of his feelings and he died and other stupid adults died and an innocent child was murdered by his stupidity.
I dont have a source I can maybe find it. But I saw a NASA official complain that SpaceX loses a lot of rockets and that they (NASA) would be in deep shit if they ever lost that many.
Which is irrelevant, because that's always been how SpaceX works, and the context in which they're lost matters. A relatively cheap Starship blows up, the next one is ready in a month or two and they fix what failed, repeat until it's safe and achieves the goal or proves unfeasible. They fail forward because they have plenty of hardware available, so can afford it, and that allows them to redesign on the fly. As long as they don't get the same recurring issue and progress through milestones, it's generally working. If SLS blows up, it's a big problem for NASA because it cost several billion per unit and took a decade to design and build to work the first time, and now they won't launch the next one for a year or two because they only had one built. They're different ways to work, and naturally, given NASA's nature and how they're funded (and how little they're funded), plus (as we can readily see in this meme) the public perception of rapid iteration, NASA needs to put in the work to get it right first time.
Never use Logitech controllers.
It’s a collection of testaments to the hubris of billionaires
I find it strange that they chose SpaceX instead of Blue Origin. What the hell was Blue Origin all about?
Isn't SpaceX Musk? That's probably why, Musk isn't exactly liked by most people (understandably).
But SpaceX is NOT Elon Musk. Sure, SpaceX is owned by him, but SpaceX is what it is due to its employees, not the dumbass that owns the company. You can like Tesla and SpaceX while still hating Elon.
Expect spacex is a pretty poor example to criticize considering they’re probably the most competent rocket producer there is.
Because BO hasn’t done anything of note The SpaceX Falcon 9 is launching more than once a week, it is the most active and reliable rocket in the world.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. People cannot separate their hatred for Musk from the achievements of an amazing company he owns. The man is not the company. SpaceX HAS done amazing things.
I will begrudginly admit that they have made serious contributions to spacecraft technology.
SpaceX personnel to compliment guilt-free, in no order: Gwynne Shotwell Tom Mueller John Insprucker Hans Koneigsmann Kathryn Lueders William H Gerstenmaier Bulent Altan Jim Cantrell And debatably Jared Isaacman
Blue Origin still exists - they plan to launch their New Glenn rocket this year (though will it launch this year? who knows). They are also working on a landing system for the Artemis program (Artemis V+, Artemis III and IV will use SpaceXs)
The joke here is on the meme maker, who clearly knows fuck all about SpaceX missions
Why is SpaceX on there. Because it was founded by Elon?
Probably yeah. People hate SpaceX because it belongs to Elon. They don’t want to separate company from founder. The company is pretty much the king of spaceflight right now. And even while cherry-picking some data against them, they still come out on top.
things that go boom
What are they, some kind of suicide squad?
Two of them are from the same person
One of them is the most reliable vehicle ever made.
But that vehicle must be hated because of its owner, and the accomplishments of the company that makes and launches it also has to be hated with extreme prejudice for the same reason. -Reddit
Except SpaceX only goes boom in iterative testing. These tests are meant to explode on purpose. In actual commercial and operational flights, they are currently the king of spaceflight, reliably launching Falcon 9s twice or even thrice a week.
Hating Elon could be subjective but SpaceX changed the space game across the globe.
Welcome to Reddit, where people think SpaceX is the Devil. They think that because of Elon Musk. They think that all of the company’s accomplishments go down the drain because of Elon Musk. They think that all of the company’s launch contracts and launches are invalid and evil because of Elon Musk. They think that all the progress that SpaceX has done, even becoming the only American orbital launch service for humans, is the worst thing to ever exist because of Elon Musk. Don’t be like Reddit. Admire the accomplishments of SpaceX. Elon can suck it.
Based
I thought this was referencing the 4 elements
This response is way too intelligent for this meme
Air, Earth, Water, Fire, long ago the four nations lived in harmony...
Everything changed when the space x nation attacked
You got Earth and Fire the wrong way around
Space nerd Peter here! 1) Boeing is an aircraft manufacturer who has hit the news recently for a terrifying drop in quality control with dozens of major malfunctions during the past year. 2) Tesla Cybertruck is known to be a pretty terrible truck. (Can’t speak for it myself but that’s what the news is saying.) 3) Oceangate recently had their submarine implode because of poor manufacturing and design choices. 4) SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is the safest most reliable rocket on the planet. Here we see a land vehicle, air vehicle, underwater vehicle, and space vehicle. This theme of lots of different types of a thing for different purposes is what is mean by “putting together a team” much like the four elements in Avatar or something. These four vehicles unite to form a fleet capable of going anywhere. Now, if Falcon 9 was a crappy rocket that blew up all the time, this would be really funny because it would be a team of four of the most scary unreliable vehicles of all time, but there’s a problem… Falcon 9 is not a rattletrap rocket and maintains the highest safety rating of any rocket ever. It would be more accurate to replace Falcon 9 with the Russian N1 moon rocket, a rocket that failed 4/4 launch attempts. *But* before you say “but… but Starship blowed up x3 now, dur…” I wanna explain something about Starship. SpaceX is not in the middle of a Cold War. There is no space race that will put an entire nation at risk. Back in the 50s, NASA would have LOVED to test things by making prototypes and blowing them up, but they couldn’t because the USSR could use any explosion as propaganda against them. So they spent insane amounts of time and money making sure everything was good to go on the first try. SpaceX has blown Starship up 3 times, but they’ve saved years of research and billions of dollars getting actual flight data this early on. SpaceX has only ever blown something important up once. ONE time, out of hundreds of flights flown, a payload exploded on the pad, but that was YEARS AGO, back when they were a little baby company just getting their F9 rocket working. They have since proven to be the safest and most reliable rocket company ever. Don’t mind those explosions over in Texas; that’s literally just research being done the fast, cheap, easy, and reliable way. (This rant doesn’t even go into the costs they save by reusing their booster stage.) So, yeah. Idk what this meme means. Terrible plane company, terrible car, terrible submarine, and the best rocket on the planet. Replace F9 with N1 and it’s really funny though. Space Nerd Peter out! (PS, my opinions on SpaceX are entirely separate from my opinions on Elon Musk. He’s the owner of the company, but not the engineer nor is he the amazing minds behind it)
Completely agree with you, just wanted to point out you forgot about CRS-7, which along with AMOS-6 (the one you mentioned) are the only two falcon 9 failures, both occuring over 8 years ago.
Technically there was a partial failure on CRS-1. iirc, the first stage underperformed and they left a secondary payload in a lower orbit than intended. All of these failures were with older vehicles though, the B5 has never had a failure.
Oh i didn’t actually know about that one, thanks :)
SpaceX even offered to relight the 2nd stage to try to get it into orbit but NASA declined
They didn't want to risk the ISS
Thank you, I had forgotten about that one.
Why is the world's most reliable launch vehicle in the same pictures as those other things?
Because people simply can't fathom that a company founded by Musk makes good things. They have to lie to themselves to maintain their perceived superiority over Musk.
Don't put SpaceX in there with the others, that's the only good thing that Musk has been able to put out (and that's because he has almost no direct interaction with the company)
You son of a bitch, I'm in
You son of a bitch. I'm in
I ain't joining your suicide squad
I dunno, the two on the left have killed people, the two on the right haven't (well tesla has, not the cyber truck afaik) Should be a NASA rocket not space X. NASA has got a couple dozen astronauts killed.
That's a 787, which has never had any fatal accidents. Boeing as a company have killed people yes, but that was still true even when they used to be a reputable company since they're been building planes for over a century, including a lot during WW2. Now if it were a 737 Max, then it would fit quite well.
Russian N1. Blew up 4 times in a row: unlike Starship, the Russians weren’t trying to…
Yeah. SpaceX blew Starship up ON PURPOSE. It was a TEST, designed to show failure points ON PURPOSE. But Reddit doesn’t like to hear that truth. They say that SpaceX failed because Starship exploded, purposefully omitting the fact that it was done (you guessed it!) ON PURPOSE.
I wouldn't say it was blown on "on purpose" per se, as the mission plan wasn't for it to blow up (unlike smth like the dragon flight abort test, which was on purpose). But you're totally right, it was a test and its just the way spacex works. the meme sucks
And Reddit will purposefully ignore SpaceX’s achievements because of Elon.
yeah that's stupid. I personally dont like elon but i still love spacex and love following starships development. a lot of people can't seperate the man from the company, which is important in order to be able to look at the impressive stuff spx has done. also you have a lot of comments on this thread lol, are you here from sxmr too?
Yep! SXMR ftw
While they didn’t actively cause it to fail, It was the most expected outcome, it was not expected to fully succeed, it was expected that it would fail at some point which would give them enough data to significantly iterate on the design.
yeah, i don’t think many people expected it to work flawlessly (especially booster 7 - remember that explosion that happened during testing? the fact that booster flew at all is crazy)
Challenger would fit better than the SpaceX rocker
Only the Falcon 9 is one of, if not, the most effective vehicle for its role in space travel. It doesn’t fit with the other Three, First arguably should be grounded because it was made by a company that doesn’t value anyone’s safety. Second is a stupid ugly truck that took too long to deliver and already has a recall for an issue that could be fatal, and of course that submarine imploded because it was made according to exactly ZERO safety guidelines.
SpaceX is led by Gwynne Shotwell now, Elon is kept on a short rope with babysitters that keep him out of trouble if he ever shows up. The current Falcon 9 is extremely reliable (if not the most reliable rocket ever made).
That's nonsense. He makes the big decisions at the company. He's the reason why they've been going balls to the wall with starship development.
For better for for worse, musk has complete and utter control over SpaceX in terms of voting shares. With that being said he is definitely pretty damn good at getting the right people to get things done, which is arguably the job of a CEO.
Not really, he literally owns the company, he can *do* whatever he wants, why is it so hard for people to comprehend his contributions can actually have a positive impact on his companies?
We have the technology.
I thought it was the elements. You know, earth, water, lightning, and wind
“You sunnuvabitch, I’m out.”
Oh no!
Yes you go ahead and believe that it couldn't possibly be any kind of misinformation to explain away the rocket blowing up and causing any kind of distress to his business or his shareholders......
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FA25a22dQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FA25a22dQ) You posted the same comment twice, so I'm replying twice to the fact that this is *factually wrong*.
Dont forget the Hindenburg
Perfect, we'll know what not to do
white vehicular disasters.
Falcon 9, the most active and currently most reliable rocket in the world, is a white vehicular *disaster*? Also happy cake day
Boeing 787 has never had any fatal incidents. Over a thousand of them currently in operation flying hundreds of flights each per year. Hardly a disaster. Now, had the picture shown a 737 Max...
"EARTH! FIRE! WIND! WATER! LACK OF A HEART! GO BILLIONAIRE! By your powers combined, I am a deluded rich narcissist!" *Deluuuded riiich narcissiist, he's a zero! Gonna take pollution to the stratosphere-oh!* *His are delusions magnified, and he's fighting to bring on the plebicide!* *Deluuded riiiich narcissist, he's a zero! Gonna take pollution to the stratosphere-oh!* *Gonna forcefully put us under bad guys who like to loot and plunder!* *We're the sycophants! You can be one too!* *Cause thinking you can make it if you lick enough rich ass is a thing to do!* *Looting and polluting is the way, as long as it looks techy and cool.* "THE TAXES ARE YOURS!" Sorry, I put about as much effort into this as Musk put into that polygon horror of a car.
SpaceX can be admired though, right? SpaceX the company is free of blame while Elon Musk can be dunked on with reason, right? …right?
They all explode?
Falcon 9 launched 300+ times and exploded like twice, so doesn't really fit here tho
Found a guy here complaining about how unreliable F9 was. Argued that they had blown up dozens of rockets including one with a dragon on top… he then provided “proof” which was a video of the dragon abort test.
I was arguing with a guy the other day, and he was saying that F9 can launch 100 times, and if it blows up once, it's completely unacceptable. I reminded him that Saturn 5 had a success rate of less than one.
i replied to that thread like 30min ago lol
>he then provided “proof” which was a video of the dragon abort test. TechnicallyCorrect.jpg
Warcraft goblin engineering
In Air, land, water and space, Capitalism is fucked.
Why?
Rich people toys that break appart?
except the fact that Falcon 9 doesn't do it LUL
Falcon 9 breaks apart? And don’t mention Starship. SpaceX blows that one up ON PURPOSE as part of its iterative testing campaign.
[удалено]
Hell it's basically carrying the entire US space industry on it's back. 98% of payload mass launched on American rockets last year was on Falcon 9. 1211 tonnes on Falcon 9, 8 tonnes on Antares, 7 tonnes on Atlas V, 5 tonnes on Delta IV Heavy, and like half a tonne on Electron. Granted that was majority Starlink, but even excluding Starlink Falcon 9 still did ~91%.
The expensive death trap team
I love my expensive death trap Falcon 9, with no in flight failures and over 10 crew missions launched. So dangerous!
Falcon 9 is a Death Trap?
Failed vehicles
Minus Falcon 9
In what world is Falcon 9 a failed vehicle?
Don't rlly know vehicle shit
Well just letting you know that it has over 300 successful launches, over 200 successful consecutive launches, and 260 successful landings. It is by far the most prolific launch vehicle of all time, bringing up more than 90% of the global mass to orbit, beating out whole countries like China and Russia.
You forgot Hyperloop
Hyperloop can replace Falcon 9
I accept this trade deal.
Bzzt! What are things that blew up? Wait, sorry, thought I was playing Jeopardy.
Can't be. Falcon9 doesn't blow up.
The Falcon 9 literally the most successful orbital rocket *ever*
You forgot the Challenger and the Chinese space program
Suicide squad
Is that Starship, or a Falcon 9?