Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

spacenews.com

51–60 of 189 posts

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.

Why do you immediately jump to drugs as a conclusion? Maybe they just want to commemorate the birthday of the visionary leader who recognized and funded the genius inventor that ultimately ended up being instrumental in getting the American space program of the ground? /s

Hitler?

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#52
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gwynne Shotwell has said that SpaceX is a rocket factory company, not a rocket company. I agree entirely, the possibilities here make me so excited.

I understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies? I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include…

There probably _is_ a similar, relevant distinction between mass-manufactured cars like Ford's and hand-built high-end cars like, I dunno, a McLaren F1, though. We don't use this exact terminology, but I think SpaceX is trying to be Ford in contrast to the legacy players, which are McLaren.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.

Putting a rocket into orbit requires a good understanding of science and reality. There is no actual scientific proof that occasionally using marijuana is a bad thing that would make a potential employee a bad employee. Maybe politicians don't like that reality, but they are not the ones putting people into orbit.

The traditional explanation is that drug users can be blackmailed and security compromised by adversaries threatening to reveal federally prohibited behavior.

It seems antiquated.

Edit: as cannabis use is transitioning to decriminalized, testing specifically for that will become antiquated. Standing crimes of course will remain leverage for bad guys.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#57
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gwynne Shotwell has said that SpaceX is a rocket factory company, not a rocket company. I agree entirely, the possibilities here make me so excited.

I understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies? I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include…

Most definitely! I mean, Ford was revolutionary because it was the first car factory company, right?

Before that, you had to have a weird german guy hand build your buggy.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#58
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gwynne Shotwell has said that SpaceX is a rocket factory company, not a rocket company. I agree entirely, the possibilities here make me so excited.

I understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies? I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include…

Sure, but for now it seems like a nice succinct way of communicating the difference from the legacy rocket companies.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting a rocket into orbit requires a good understanding of science and reality. There is no actual scientific proof that occasionally using marijuana is a bad thing that would make a potential employee a bad employee. Maybe politicians don't like that reality, but they are not the ones putting people into orbit.

The traditional explanation is that drug users can be blackmailed and security compromised by adversaries threatening to reveal federally prohibited behavior. It seems antiquated. Edit: as cannabis use is transitioning to decriminalized, testing specifically for that will become antiquated. Standing crimes of course will remain leverage for bad guys.

Eh, I buy that "habitually committing crimes" makes it easier for adversaries to blackmail you. Seems like evergreen logic that doesn't get antiquated.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting a rocket into orbit requires a good understanding of science and reality. There is no actual scientific proof that occasionally using marijuana is a bad thing that would make a potential employee a bad employee. Maybe politicians don't like that reality, but they are not the ones putting people into orbit.

To be clear, you think they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees? That seems like a stretch.

I didn't say that at all
Post reply on HN