111–120 of 1001 posts
Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.
This story/thread gets my upvote because it is by far the least click-bait headline I saw in a quick scan of /new. I will disagree with you though and say that the rocket stage separation failed to work. And this occurred a few minutes after launching. What would your headline be?
People always joke that a success like this will be blasted by the media as a failure, but it's the most predictable thing ever. Massive success today for SpaceX but the story is massive failure. So silly. I'm as anti-Musk as the next, but it's also weird to see so many people gleeful that Musk must be so embarrassed at this 'massive failure'. Like, how uninformed do you have to be to think that Elon would be humilia…
Not just misinformed. How petty and I dunno, plain _evil_ do you have to be? This is a step into making humanity reaching the stars. Is seeing a guy you hate fail really all that matters?
This makes me proud to be American, proud to be an engineer, and just stoked to be human. Let's show some humility and graciousness, people!
Very reminiscent of Soviet N1 rocket. Same concept. Similar problems.
Going to guess you don't actually know what the details are in the comparison betwen the N1 and Starship, because this is a incredibly uniformed comment without any arguments/evidence.
It appeared not all engines light up. Was it normal?
Starship is unique in that it has so many engines, which add redundancy. They can (re)start engines mid-flight.
With the loss of 5 engines, this demo flight would have been fine. Though they will have some work to do on reliability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if this is true, it's going to get more and more difficult to explain away rocket explosions as succeeding the more decades we put between us and the dawn of the Space Age. If SpaceX is still blowing up rockets in 2033, it's going to become a PR problem, especially as the MSM further turns its back on Musk.
No, it won't. It is obvious that every new rocket that was built from ground up will fail a few times before it is released. This is not a "production build". And you don't need to explain anything when your "test build" fails, it is obvious some will.
Very reminiscent of Soviet N1 rocket. Same concept. Similar problems.
Can you share? I figure this is mostly just new system problems. When I write lots of new code my unit tests find a lot of bugs in the first pass, but you don't have that in complex dynamic mechanical systems. Simulation can only take you so far.
[flagged]
Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.
> "Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad." I am confused. Everything I read before the launch said that it was intended to reach orbital altitude and make it around the Earth.
One of the new graphics that showed up on the dashboard was that of the engines lit. There were at least 2 on the outer ring that were fed from TO, and a few more winked out during the flight. I’m curious how many off engines the system tolerates. How many do they anticipate regularly? I’ve never noticed if Falcon 9s periodically run as a Falcon 8 or 7? All and all, ‘‘twas an awesome sight. Kudos to all those cheerin…
If you watch the this launch video, It looks like there are projectiles coming up from the pad around 18s. I wonder if the launch pad or engines were damaged by explosion. https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649043715686793218