/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6409254
>It didn't explode, it was a controlled destruction.
lol nope.csv
Telemitry data indicated that engen out, then vered off course and disintegrated. When you have a big ass rocket starting to fly sideways things break. When rocket tanks break they esplode. The whole "controlled destruction" bullshit was someone trying to cover asses/put a spin on it.

>You're typical launcher aims for 4-5 g acceleration.
But the launch hardware is required to be rated much much higher than that.

>Uneducated guesswork.
Please enlight me, provide documentation of the structural requirements for comsats.

>I don't think any could and certainly not for less than the cost of insurance.
Uneducated guesswork.

>We have no idea what information they had available to them or what assumptions they made.
Yet everything they build costs billions. Even the things not mandated by congress.

Ares I-X was a fucking shuttle era srb with a mass simulator cost $445 million. They even had the extended segment constructed but they chose to static fire it instead of flight test. Because they are too fucking scared of there own shadows to save half a billion dollars and combine two tests into one. So fucking risk averse and free spending.

It's easy to spend other peoples money, this is why cost plus is always a bad deal, its why NASA sucks and it's why our population has to support such a top heavy government.