SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 8:46 PM UTC

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #135

neverrroot wrote: post #131

Elon bringing excitement to the human race. His way of pushing through is something that gives me hope in the capabilities of humanity.

Every time Elon says or does something cringey nowadays, I just keep repeating the same mantra to myself: "There's no way he can fuck up SpaceX with his antics now, it's too far advanced for his ego to ruin it all and plunge us back into another space exploration winter, stay calm".

Post by pfdietz » Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 8:48 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #33

baq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are customers from three letter agencies who could find a use for this payload capacity, for sure. OTOH imagine if a reusable launch of this costs approximately the same as an expendable Atlas 5 in it's most performant configuration and reliability is proven - NASA could launch a Pluto probe like New Horizons, except it'd be able actually make orbit over there.

Atlas 5 is already completely obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which costs about half as much, for a reusable launch, and carries about 3x as much. But for Starship, most people don't seem to realize what a potential game changer this is. The goal for Starship is to get costs down to about 15x less than Falcon Heavy. When you can start sending stuff to space for a few dollars per pound, we're not talking about just prob…

Post by djmips » Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #61

dotnet00 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploded is a loaded term that has been ruined by media to make it so that people interpret even development testing as a failure. RUD conveys the same idea of the vehicle losing structural integrity, serves as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor for those who understand it, and limits the number of idiots screaming "look this project is obviously a scam" slightly.

in 10 years RUD will mean exploded, that's how language works. retarded used to be a medical term to replace loaded terms such as imbecile. You can see how successful that was. It turns out, dressing up an idea does absolutely nothing since it's the idea that has the negative connotation. And why shouldn't "exploded" be viewed in a negative light?

Post by teraflop » Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

bagels wrote: post #133

Rocket euphemisms are so silly, "one engine failed energetically"

Post by 7952 » Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 8:50 PM UTC

dotnet00 wrote: post #25

wiz21c wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they just say "exploded" ?

Exploded is a loaded term that has been ruined by media to make it so that people interpret even development testing as a failure. RUD conveys the same idea of the vehicle losing structural integrity, serves as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor for those who understand it, and limits the number of idiots screaming "look this project is obviously a scam" slightly.