At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Blowing up rockets until it works is a far better approach than trying to get everything to work on the first try and ending up with a hugely overpriced white elephant.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        How do you do something “correctly” when nobody knows what that is? If your main priority is to do it “correctly” you will never develop anything fundamentally new.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          A rocket is not fundamentally new and hasn’t been for almost 100 years.

          Rockets perform correctly when they deliver their payload to the correct orbit.

          You can calculate the energy density of fuels, the efficiency of your engines at various atmospheric pressures, and determine the payload size you can deliver with your engines and fuel. Blowing up rockets for “tests” is so 1950s. We have whole college programs on rocket design. We have desktop computers more powerful than anything available in the 1960s, and NASA managed to design the Saturn V, a rocket of similar size to starship, with the computers of the time and fucking slide rules. The Saturn V had its problem, but each rocket managed to deliver its payload and perform its part of the mission without blowing up.

          Your comment is classic tech bro. No understanding of real engineering principles and only a desire to shove some shit out of the door as fast as possible.