Well at least Elon had some hardware built instead of just PPTs. But some argue commercial space companies, "To be fair, probably about 25% of New Space does have some minimal substance, but over the past decade the clear majority of them have never amount to anything beyond a press conference where they make grandiose promises and then beg for money from investors and NASA."
You don't think the videos they sometimes release are real?
but do they show the good stuff? how about technie stuff but understandably they hold this back, proprietary info. SpaceX has been known to cut the live feed when something goes wrong. And the landing of Dream Chaser when landing gear failed they cut that part out but they claim the landing test was a success (if it's so great then why not show the vid?). I heard the craft did not tumble like the M2F2 (as shown on opening of Six Milllion Dollar Man) but if they're taking govt money (tax payer) then I cry foul when they do a Soviet Russia.
I was expecting a tour of the ship from someone who knew it inside and out – instead I was just told “here it is – off you go!”. “Er OK do you have a map?”. “No. The engine is that way, the bridge is that way. Have fun, and make sure you aren’t on board in 5 hours because the ship will be leaving for Russia.” So off I went
True, but they weren't exactly built to last. They were built quickly. They had a tendency to break in two.
and transmission had only three settings: Forward, backward, and neutral. There was a pic showing one that broke in two because didn't spend time to engineer for steel contraction in very cold water. Must have been terrible when (if it did happen) at sea. Interesting comment from previous post, "Kaiser actually built one in four days in a carefully-choreographed stunt...two or three weeks was typical." Another benefit was Kaiser created employee health benefits as perk to attract workers. Companies did have to compete for employees in those days.
If you see the Russian spacecraft, it's amazing how determined they were to compete, relatively successfully with the US space program,
James Harford in the 1997 book "Korolev" he interviewed several of Sergei Korolev colleages and one of them said when Kennedy announced the race to the Moon, the Soviets can either get in the race or not. They did neither. There were those in Politburo very interested in manned spaceflight, others that were not ("stop wasting resources with man in space which is only good for propaganda instead of actual military hardware). When Khrushchev was ":sent to Siberia" Korolev lost much support. He was able to proceed with Soyuz, N1 (he was also chief of many other programs) but their space program was not given all resources. So there was not enough resources for development and ground tests, N1 never had successful launch, Soyuz had it's growing pains and its first manned flight was a fatality.
I wonder if our space program is experiencing this "we're doing neither." No shortcuts are being taken in SLS and Orion development but there is no significant funding for landers and habitat modules. And where is US going? Moon, Mars, or an asteroid? Depends on who you talk to.
Here's a fun experiment: cover your bathroom floor and surfaces with tissue paper and flush the toilet (warning this may make you want to throw away your current toothbrush).
does this experiment include viewing water splatter from a UV source or something like that?