i don't disagree though, maybe for differing reasons
Allowing a rocket to fall on land like that shows extreme contempt for public safety.
Success is all that matters.
From to the Range Commanders Council Range Safety Group, 2010, summary of FTS requirements:
2. produce a small number of pieces, all of which are unstable and impact within a small footprint;
And also another requirement relevant to this particular video where the spent booster clearly had uncombusted carcinogenic hypergolic fuel when it hit the ground:
3. control disposition of hazardous materials (burning propellant, toxic materials, radioactive materials, ordnance, etc.);
I think that's a ideology thing that goes across borders, as it's a problem on both sides of the pacific.
Other countries seem to be very careful with their reentry plans.
- American AI “safety” practices have little or nothing in common with best practices in other fields of engineering, to the extent they can be said to exist at all (most AI safety work focuses on making sure the AI doesn’t say anything that might offend someone).
- When a rocket blows up, people die but we learn from the mistake. When an AI seriously “threatens humanity”, humanity dies and we very possibly don’t get a second chance.
AI taking over the world is, as yet, an imagined threat.
When AI proves it will take over the world and China builds theirs without the "don't take over the world" code mandated by every other country, let's talk more.
Unfortunately if that happens, we won’t be able to!