SpaceX Starship falls apart during test flight over the Bahamas

Scut Farkus said:
nasa is a bunch of Satan worshippers.

jack Parsons NASA and the occult.

  1. The Sex-Cult 'Antichrist' Who Rocketed Us to Space: Part 1​


    https://www.sciencehistory.org › stories › disappearing-pod › the-sex-cult-antichrist-who-rocketed-us-to-space-part-1
    Mar 12, 2024Jack Parsons practiced the occult and led a sex cult. He was also one of history's most important rocket scientists. (Episode 1 of 2) ... During the move, the trio decided to call their new outfit the Jet Propulsion Laboratory—the famous JPL of NASA fame today. By all rights, it should have been called the RPL, for Rocket Propulsion ...
  2. wired.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Occultist father of rocketry 'written out' of Nasa's history​


    https://www.wired.com › story › jpl-jack-parsons
    As Parsons' interest in the occult developed, his colleague Malina approached the National Academy of Sciences for funding into "jet propulsion" as a means for developing more nimble aircraft ...
  3. en.wikipedia.org

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Jack Parsons - Wikipedia​


    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Jack_Parsons
    John Whiteside Parsons (born Marvel Whiteside Parsons; [nb 1] October 2, 1914 - June 17, 1952) was an American rocket engineer, chemist, and Thelemite occultist.Parsons was one of the principal founders of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Aerojet.He invented the first rocket engine to use a castable, composite rocket propellant, [1] and pioneered the advancement of both liquid ...
  4. supercluster.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    The Occult History Behind NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory​


    https://www.supercluster.com › editorial › the-occult-history-behind-nasas-jet-propulsion-laboratory
    Jack Parsons was one of the most influential figures in the history of the American space program. He was also a Marxist, stood accused of espionage, and held a deep fascination with the occult. His interest in the supernatural went far beyond vaudeville magicians and astrology.
  5. spacesafetymagazine.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL​


    https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com › aerospace-engineering › rocketry › jack-parsons-occult-roots-jpl
    JPL 101 from NASA. Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons by John Carter. Strange Angel: The Otherworldly Life of Rocket Scientist John Whiteside Parsons by George Pendel. Opinions expressed are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Space Safety Magazine or its sponsors. Tags Crowley Jack Parsons JATO JPL ...
  6. vice.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Crawling Back to the Alleged Hell Portal of NASA's Occult Origins - VICE​


    https://www.vice.com › en › article › crawling-back-to-the-alleged-hell-portal-of-nasas-occult-origins
    Or maybe it was the occult's general grasp over southern California that pulled Parsons to the dark arts. The rocket boys, 1936. That's Parsons foregrounded on the right ( via JPL / NASA)
  7. allthatsinteresting.com

    Only include results for this siteHide site from these results

    Share feedback about this site

    Jack Parsons, The Occultist Who Helped Send America To Space​


    https://allthatsinteresting.com › jack-parsons
    May 11, 2024When he wasn't testing rocket engines
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit?

At least he wasn't a Bible thumper nutjob who went around spouting fairy tales about a magic sky fairy who lives on a cloud and grants wishes to the good little boys and girls who profess to believe in Him.
 
Scut Farkus said:
all costs are passed along damo.

you KNOW this.

stop it now.
Click to expand...
Again, only if they are successful in creating the vehicle. Not every venture is successful. Think of the Edsel... Or that Elio vehicle... If it never makes it to market the cost is eaten by the investors and we do not pay for it.
 
Damocles said:
Again, only if they are successful in creating the vehicle. Not every venture is successful. Think of the Edsel... Or that Elio vehicle... If it never makes it to market the cost is eaten by the investors and we do not pay for it.
Click to expand...
but losses from failures are recouped with successes, otherwise it would be out of business.
I'm not saying it's easy.
 
is the military industrial complex a charity?

really?

a 501 c3?

I was born at night, but its not raining you peed on my leg but not last night.
 
Scut Farkus said:
but losses from failures are recouped with successes, otherwise it would be out of business.
I'm not saying it's easy.
Click to expand...
Only if there is success. Let's say he tests and tests and never produces a successful product. All the risk and cost will be absorbed by investors. Success nets reward, not testing...

In every case we pay for the end result and not the tests. Government doesn't produce anything, they cannot create a rocket they pay others for rockets that work.
 
Damocles said:
Only if there is success. Let's say he tests and tests and never produces a successful product. All the risk and cost will be absorbed by investors. Success nets reward, not testing...

In every case we pay for the end result and not the tests. Government doesn't produce anything, they cannot create a rocket they pay others for rockets that work.
Click to expand...
i still say the costs of testing are folded into the overall business.

of course they are.

you're being ludicrous now.

maybe their in the hole for a minute, but it all evens out over time.

usually over scotch and hookers.

:truestory:
 
Damocles said:
Only if there is success. Let's say he tests and tests and never produces a successful product. All the risk and cost will be absorbed by investors. Success nets reward, not testing...

In every case we pay for the end result and not the tests. Government doesn't produce anything, they cannot create a rocket they pay others for rockets that work.
Click to expand...
with everyone's money.
 
Scut Farkus said:
with everyone's money.
Click to expand...
Well, whose money should we use to fly into space? There are some companies out there taking the risk as a profit venture (planning on putting hotels out there, in one instance) a flight to Mars will most likely be a government venture. The government doesn't pay the company to test things though... The government pays for the end result, much like a taxi...

When you get in the Taxi, a portion of what you are paying for is to repay the loan for the person who purchased the vehicle. When they purchase that vehicle a portion of what they pay is the engineering and testing it took to create the vehicle... this is how commerce works.

Now, when we rent space in a SpaceX vehicle to send some satellites into space or to get astronauts from the Space Station, a portion of what we pay to rent that space will certainly go towards the cost of the risk incurred in engineering, testing and building the vehicle... However we do not pay for the testing any more than you paid for the testing of the car you drive daily.

When I pay for internet that comes from the satellites he designed, a portion of what I pay goes towards repaying the risk, design, engineering and testing of the satellites and vehicle that put them in space... again, it is how commerce works. I pay him so I can have fast internets... I am not paying for the testing.
 
Damocles said:
Well, whose money should we use to fly into space? There are some companies out there taking the risk as a profit venture (planning on putting hotels out there, in one instance) a flight to Mars will most likely be a government venture. The government doesn't pay the company to test things though... The government pays for the end result, much like a taxi...

When you get in the Taxi, a portion of what you are paying for is to repay the loan for the person who purchased the vehicle. When they purchase that vehicle a portion of what they pay is the engineering and testing it took to create the vehicle...

Now, when we rent space in a SpaceX vehicle to send some satellites into space or to get astronauts from the Space Station, a portion of what we pay to rent that space will certainly go towards the cost of the risk incurred in engineering, testing and building the vehicle... However we do not pay for the testing any more than you paid for the testing of the car you drive daily.
Click to expand...
you're not a risk taking job creating super Jesus supply side messiah if you're just using other people's money.


:truestory:
 
Space exploration has a long history of testing mishaps, ranging from minor setbacks to catastrophic failures. These incidents have often been critical in shaping safety protocols, engineering standards, and mission planning.

Here’s a rundown of some notable examples:
  1. Apollo 1 Fire (1967)
    During a ground test on January 27, 1967, a cabin fire broke out in the Apollo 1 command module at Cape Kennedy. The pure oxygen environment, combined with flammable materials and an electrical spark, led to the deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. This disaster forced NASA to overhaul its spacecraft design, including better fireproofing and a mixed-gas atmosphere.
  2. Vanguard TV3 (1957)
    The U.S. Navy’s first attempt to launch a satellite, Vanguard TV3, ended in embarrassment on December 6, 1957. Just two seconds after liftoff, the rocket lost thrust, fell back to the pad, and exploded in a fireball. The satellite rolled free, beeping pitifully, while the press dubbed it “Flopnik” amid Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union’s Sputnik success.
  3. Soyuz 1 (1967)
    The Soviet Union’s Soyuz 1 mission ended tragically when cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov’s capsule crashed on April 24, 1967. A parachute failure during reentry caused the spacecraft to plummet into the ground at high speed, killing Komarov. Rumors persist of political pressure to launch despite known technical issues, though details remain murky due to Soviet secrecy.
  4. Challenger Disaster (1986)
    On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven crew members, including teacher Christa McAuliffe. The cause was traced to an O-ring seal failure in the solid rocket booster, exacerbated by cold weather. This led to a major redesign of shuttle boosters and a rethink of NASA’s risk management.
  5. Columbia Breakup (2003)
    During reentry on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Foam insulation shed during launch had damaged the wing’s thermal protection, allowing hot gases to penetrate during descent. The tragedy highlighted issues with NASA’s safety culture and aging shuttle fleet.
  6. X-15 Flight 191 (1967)
    The X-15, a rocket-powered plane for hypersonic research, suffered a fatal crash on November 15, 1967. Pilot Michael Adams lost control at 266,000 feet due to an electrical fault and vertigo, causing the craft to break apart. It was one of the deadliest incidents in the X-15 program.
  7. SpaceX Falcon 1 Failures (2006-2008)
    Early SpaceX launches of the Falcon 1 rocket saw three consecutive failures. The first, in 2006, ended when a fuel line leak caused an engine fire seconds after liftoff. The second, in 2007, succumbed to fuel sloshing issues. The third, in 2008, failed due to a staging separation error, destroying customer payloads. These setbacks nearly bankrupted SpaceX before a successful fourth flight.
  8. Proton-M Explosion (2013)
    On July 2, 2013, a Russian Proton-M rocket veered off course and exploded seconds after launch from Baikonur, carrying three GLONASS satellites. The culprit? Angular velocity sensors installed upside down—a human error that underscored persistent quality control issues in Russia’s space program.
These mishaps, while costly in lives, resources, and reputation, have often driven progress. Each failure exposed flaws—whether in design, oversight, or execution—leading to safer, more reliable systems. Space exploration’s history shows that risk is inherent, but so is the drive to learn and improve.



@Grok
 
Scut Farkus said:
you're not a risk taking job creating super Jesus supply side messiah if you're just using other people's money.


:truestory:
Click to expand...
The government buys things the same way we do. And again, large scale space exploration has been paid for by governments... In this case we rent space on the rockets, we are not paying to design and test like NASA used to do. These rockets were created to put satellites in orbit that we use for internet access around the world... Those of us who use it (mostly folks in rural areas), we pay for that willingly because we want fast internet.
 
is it right for government scientists to get royalties when they use the people's money for development?

should not the patents be publicly owned?

of course they should be.
 
Diogenes said:
Space exploration has a long history of testing mishaps, ranging from minor setbacks to catastrophic failures. These incidents have often been critical in shaping safety protocols, engineering standards, and mission planning.

Here’s a rundown of some notable examples:
  1. Apollo 1 Fire (1967)
    During a ground test on January 27, 1967, a cabin fire broke out in the Apollo 1 command module at Cape Kennedy. The pure oxygen environment, combined with flammable materials and an electrical spark, led to the deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. This disaster forced NASA to overhaul its spacecraft design, including better fireproofing and a mixed-gas atmosphere.
  2. Vanguard TV3 (1957)
    The U.S. Navy’s first attempt to launch a satellite, Vanguard TV3, ended in embarrassment on December 6, 1957. Just two seconds after liftoff, the rocket lost thrust, fell back to the pad, and exploded in a fireball. The satellite rolled free, beeping pitifully, while the press dubbed it “Flopnik” amid Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union’s Sputnik success.
  3. Soyuz 1 (1967)
    The Soviet Union’s Soyuz 1 mission ended tragically when cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov’s capsule crashed on April 24, 1967. A parachute failure during reentry caused the spacecraft to plummet into the ground at high speed, killing Komarov. Rumors persist of political pressure to launch despite known technical issues, though details remain murky due to Soviet secrecy.
  4. Challenger Disaster (1986)
    On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven crew members, including teacher Christa McAuliffe. The cause was traced to an O-ring seal failure in the solid rocket booster, exacerbated by cold weather. This led to a major redesign of shuttle boosters and a rethink of NASA’s risk management.
  5. Columbia Breakup (2003)
    During reentry on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Foam insulation shed during launch had damaged the wing’s thermal protection, allowing hot gases to penetrate during descent. The tragedy highlighted issues with NASA’s safety culture and aging shuttle fleet.
  6. X-15 Flight 191 (1967)
    The X-15, a rocket-powered plane for hypersonic research, suffered a fatal crash on November 15, 1967. Pilot Michael Adams lost control at 266,000 feet due to an electrical fault and vertigo, causing the craft to break apart. It was one of the deadliest incidents in the X-15 program.
  7. SpaceX Falcon 1 Failures (2006-2008)
    Early SpaceX launches of the Falcon 1 rocket saw three consecutive failures. The first, in 2006, ended when a fuel line leak caused an engine fire seconds after liftoff. The second, in 2007, succumbed to fuel sloshing issues. The third, in 2008, failed due to a staging separation error, destroying customer payloads. These setbacks nearly bankrupted SpaceX before a successful fourth flight.
  8. Proton-M Explosion (2013)
    On July 2, 2013, a Russian Proton-M rocket veered off course and exploded seconds after launch from Baikonur, carrying three GLONASS satellites. The culprit? Angular velocity sensors installed upside down—a human error that underscored persistent quality control issues in Russia’s space program.
These mishaps, while costly in lives, resources, and reputation, have often driven progress. Each failure exposed flaws—whether in design, oversight, or execution—leading to safer, more reliable systems. Space exploration’s history shows that risk is inherent, but so is the drive to learn and improve.



@Grok
Click to expand...
all costs which were absorbed.

space programs are still profitable for these companies.

and the people pay for it.

ergo the testing is paid for.

stfu with your stupid word games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top