441–450 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, did not catch that
It's at 46:55 here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725861547065684095 I took some screenshots: https://ibb.co/1GvddL5 https://ibb.co/28BSxwG https://ibb.co/KmccttG Could be a bird, but doesn't really look like it to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just want to add another comment in here that there is no manual termination, they are using a fully automatic flight termination system.
Surely the final Starship carrying passengers will not have auto flight termination?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space Shuttle didn't have an escape system either; its total death toll was 14.
Absolute numbers don’t really mean much. More than 14 people have died since this test flight on American roads. Shuttle death rate was about 1 in 75, which is insanely high.
To compare with other launch methods, you'd need to use the same metric.
IIRC, Soyuz is actually more deadly, but it's been some time since I've seen the stats. Both Soyuz and the Space Shuttle are by far the most deadly form of transportation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is good for you so it should be good for all of humanity. I’m sorry, but it’s not. You asked me how it impacts me and I answered. > But you’re only seeing it from your perspective. You don’t have a holistic view of the world. You are failing to see the holistic view yourself because you seem to be having a bad time. Lowering the cost of mass-to-orbit by a couple of orders of magnitude significantly changes wha…
Why do we need satellites and space to care about each other? I don’t need a massive satellite in space, I need somewhere to live. A massive satellite in space is not going to provide me a house. And it’s not gonna provide any time before my death. Which is being hind because I’m homeless. Which is being hasten because, I have no healthcare. Don’t you understand? You’re all surprised about my negative comments but I’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I've not seen up close shots of the launch facility yet, but it looks like it's all still there without massive amounts of destruction either.
It's amazing what happens when you apply 60 year old solutions (water deluge).
The primary purpose of the water here is not to dampen the sound/energy, but to cool the metal plate below the rocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean this was a launch failure or a test failure? It was obviously a launch failure, but even the most optimistic wouldn't have expected anything else. As for whether the test was a failure: since it successfully did a bunch of things that didn't work the last time, why would you say it's a failure? A failure would have been scattering the pad all over again, and not getting to stage sep. Or worse.
You have to define upfront what you want to get from a test. After that you go back and see if what you got is what you expected. Optimistic/Pessimistic does not really matter. By this criteria, I would say failure/partial failure or partial sucess. There is no way this was a success. Also, everyone can call this what they want. The thing that grinds my gears is not respecting that other people do have a different op…
Pretty similar to how a lot of NASA's missions have requirements like lasting 90 days on Mars. If that is reached, the mission was a success, even though they obviously don't just stop having objectives after that.
Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.
AFTS activation indicates deviation from planned trajectory. It's unusual, being so late in the burn. Could be a guidance issue, but SpaceX should be pretty good at that by now. Could be engine underperformance, but we got nominal callouts and it would have to be pretty bad for AFTS to notice with minutes left, so that seems unlikely. I'd guess engine control (due to damage during staging) is the main suspect. We say…
AFTS seems unlikely this late in the burn, I think they said it was in terminal guidance and it's very hard to laterally change the impact point in any meaningful way with that much velocity. But I agree, it definitely looked like something's venting near the end, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Apollo also had government funding to the tune of approximately 2.5% of GDP. Starship would probably go a bit faster too with an annual budget of half a trillion.
Perhaps, although not obvious that it's cash starved. NASA's slow but meticulous approach has had a few failures, but also incredible successes such as the sky crane martian rover landing - got to get it right first time, tough to move fast and break things when the test environment is 100 million miles away! Edit: Same goes for 1969's lunar lander - had to work first time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, really displaying your ignorance here lol The SpaceX flights are way more efficient and reproducible than the Apollo missions ever were. The only reason they aren't regularly going to the moon is that there isn't a strong incentive to do so.
[flagged]
Do you have any idea how many completely uneventful flights Falcon 9 vehicles have flown? The most recent version (the FT which had its first flight in 2015) has had precisely zero failures across 254 launches.
They have a better safety record than any other launch vehicle in history, including the Saturn V and the Shuttle.
The deaths stemming from those programs have held back interest in manned space exploration more than any failed test flight ever will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX can reliably deliver payloads to orbit at much cheaper prices than anything before. The Moon program had its share of disasters, near-disasters and other failures (Apollo 1 burned with all its crew on the ground). Starship is a vehicle in development and will obviously have all sorts of bugs and edge cases to be worked out.
[flagged]