What does "definite" mean? Greater than zero? That's useless here. Either you made it to orbit or you didn't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either you are alive or you are dead. There is quite a lot of binary stuff happening in the universe, and none of it relies on things like "0.24% likelihood". SpaceX's record is abysmal, and you forgot a few facts.
1) Soyuz is a government project with the pride of a nation at stake. SpaceX is a personal project with the pride of an egomaniac at stake. If SpaceX fails, it's merely another startup gone bad. If Soyuz fails, it's quite a lot more.
2) Did Musk spend any of his billions on purchasing any of that hard-earned Soyuz flight data from Russia? If not, then he does not care to learn from history, which means that the long-term failure rate of SpaceX vehicles will likely be higher than that of Soyuz.
3) If I am right about #2, then the fatality rate for humans under SpaceX will be higher than 2%, and even 2% of a million people is already quite high, especially when you consider that most of them will not be trained to the levels of the people who have already gone up.
4) If Musk was grounded in reality, he would shoot for the moon, then Mars. Risking fewer people, closer to Earth, is certainly a much better strategy than what he has announced. If something goes wrong on the moon, help is a few days away. That might still not be good enough, but it's far better than the stretch of time required to wait for help on Mars.
5) Musk has very little experience building rockets, and none at all when it comes to building habitats for extreme environments. Take the full documentation (parts, computers, software, maintenance, and whatnot) of the latest Boeing jet, multiply that by about 100, and you might have what it takes to successfully fly to Mars and live there. This kind of endeavor will require a deep rethink of how we handle big projects. SpaceX does not have this ability.
A few years ago, we had the era when Google could do no wrong, and any criticism of Google would not be tolerated by its many fans. Now, that same mindset applies to Musk, except this time, people will die.
> What does "definite" mean? ... Either you made it to orbit or you didn't
The difficulty of defining what probability is is not a defense.
People are able to calculate a value called "probability of launch success" and use this number for useful things like pricing the insurance of the satellites being carried. I assure you that no one involved expects part of a satellite to go up.
> SpaceX's record is abysmal, and you forgot a few facts.
Your facts seem to be (angry) critiques of Musk/SpaceX, but none of them address the original point of discussion i.e. that a new rocket platform had launch failures.
Let me skip to what seems to be the important bit...
> A few years ago, we had the era when Google could do no wrong, and any criticism of Google would not be tolerated by its many fans. Now, that same mindset applies to Musk, except this time, people will die.
If that's what bugs you, here's my criticism:
- Electric cars: can't take off until there's a breakthrough in battery tech. Oh, and the breakthrough can't use elements which are rare/expensive.
- Mars: we don't have enough energy and raw materials to send more than a handful of people.
I still admire Musk for his combination of genius & entrepreneurship. He's attempting, rethinking and achieving way more than most people.
If you don't try to do things differently, there will be no innovation. The current system (NASA, et. al.) does not scale up to what is needed, so different strategies are required. It's really as simple as that.
Will he succeed? Highly unlikely. But I'm glad he's trying, and anyone who kills themselves on one of his rockets will know what they're getting into. Flying in space is inherently dangerous.
Musk is in a unique position of responsibility. If he fails, and particularly if he does so in a spectacular fashion, public sentiment may turn and go in the other direction, saying that such big projects really should be done by governments, because they are the only entities powerful enough to make grand goals happen. I am not against him or SpaceX or settling Mars, but it is quite irresponsible for him to say that he will put 10,000 people on Mars in only 10 to 20 years. Anyone with two neurons to rub together should be alarmed at such a statement, and should think twice about getting into a rocket built by him. Put 10 people on the moon, and have them survive for a year. Then, and only then, make some cautious, speculative statements about Mars. A space entrepreneur grounded in reality is more likely to succeed, but if he fails, said grounding will give those who follow a greater likelihood of success, rather than having their opportunity snatched away by a government riding on a new-found wave of public fear.
1) Soyuz is a government project with the pride of a nation at stake. SpaceX is a personal project with the pride of an egomaniac at stake. If SpaceX fails, it's merely another startup gone bad. If Soyuz fails, it's quite a lot more.
2) Did Musk spend any of his billions on purchasing any of that hard-earned Soyuz flight data from Russia? If not, then he does not care to learn from history, which means that the long-term failure rate of SpaceX vehicles will likely be higher than that of Soyuz.
3) If I am right about #2, then the fatality rate for humans under SpaceX will be higher than 2%, and even 2% of a million people is already quite high, especially when you consider that most of them will not be trained to the levels of the people who have already gone up.
4) If Musk was grounded in reality, he would shoot for the moon, then Mars. Risking fewer people, closer to Earth, is certainly a much better strategy than what he has announced. If something goes wrong on the moon, help is a few days away. That might still not be good enough, but it's far better than the stretch of time required to wait for help on Mars.
5) Musk has very little experience building rockets, and none at all when it comes to building habitats for extreme environments. Take the full documentation (parts, computers, software, maintenance, and whatnot) of the latest Boeing jet, multiply that by about 100, and you might have what it takes to successfully fly to Mars and live there. This kind of endeavor will require a deep rethink of how we handle big projects. SpaceX does not have this ability.
A few years ago, we had the era when Google could do no wrong, and any criticism of Google would not be tolerated by its many fans. Now, that same mindset applies to Musk, except this time, people will die.