or just maybe, and i know its a crazy idea, a certain individual is objectively an awful person who has done great harm in the world and its subjective if its greater or lesser then the good (imho its far greater harms then any good done but i know that is my subjective view)
just because you disagree with a widespread view/opinion does not mean its bots
often legal by their countries law hence the excuse "i was just following orders/my laws" being similar to cops "following the law" even in the clear face of it being wrong
ULA is pretty remarkable for it's run of new rockets not blowing up. Looking at ESA, JAXA, RosCosmos, ISRO, etc too is how I'm setting the par. A history like the Ariane 5 is pretty typical where flights 1 and 14 failed.
Yeah, 2 failures is par for OldSpace. NewSpace usually does much worse, though SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Rocket Lab's Electron managed to get the traditional par.
TBF: that wasn't an unsuccessful launch attempt, but a failure to not launch. Which affirms parent in that they seem to have work out all the kinks out during development.
Exactly as OP said, launcher failures happen and then you drive down their frequency.
Landing failures are still quite expected, especially on the first few tries. It's weird that they even tried on the first launch, but I don't even think of it as a try, I think of it as a "let's gather some data, and in the freakishly unlikely occurrence that everything goes perfect on the way down, we might as well load the landing software too".
I read about spaceship on one of their launches is that they attempted everything that it could possibly do on one of their boosters because you basically have the next iteration built so why not attempt anything for the telemetry.
Shuttle got very lucky. On the first flight, STS-1, an overpressure caused by the ignition of the SRBs forced the orbiter's body flap into an extreme angle which could have destroyed the hydraulic system controlling it. Had John Young know this had happened, he and Robert Crippen would have ejected, which would have destroyed the orbiter on its first flight.
There were only 2 ejection seats, enough for the crew of test flights but not the larger crew of operational flights.
The seats were only installed in Enterprise (the prototype, used only for suborbital tests) and Columbia (only enabled for STS-1 through STS-4 test flights, disabled for STS-5 the first operational flight)
The seats would only work at low altitude and speed (I've seen differing numbers cited). For the Challenger disaster they would've theoretically been useful (ignoring all the other factors), but they would've been useless for Columbia due to speed.
And it's not clear ejection would have actually been successful with the SRBs still active and right there.
As o11c mentioned, they only existed for the first few flights, the ones that only had two crew. It wasn't possible to have the election seats with the full shuttle crew so they were removed.
The ejection seats were essentially the same as those used in the SR-71, so they were survivable at shockingly high speeds and altitudes.
Norm is something like 3 rescheduling within a week from launch, 3 auto-aborts or equipment NoGo, 2 wayward boats, and 0.15-0.3 kaboom per launch. The fact that SpaceX haven't been letting wayward boats/planes for a while is remarkable by itself.
I start it with neoliberalism which really picked up steam with Nixon. But even Clinton and Obama were neoliberals every president since Nixon was neoliberal just with different social issues (divide and conquer the plebes). Globalization and exponential consumerism.
before 1990 you buy a phone like corded even cordless and they still work today if you have a landline.
Now I need a new phone every 3 years. All electronics are made to be replaced not to last and that just makes business sense but not very good environmental sense.
reply