• Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Comedy comes in threes. They’re practically obligated to explode the last one.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It actually is, and it worked pretty well in this case. The first launch was pretty pre mature, they could have gotten more data out of if they had taken a little more time. But this one was pretty much the sweet spot of getting into the interesting parts of fight, but not waiting for diminishing returns.

    • weew@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. Like, they literally corrected everything that went wrong in the first test. And it only took 7 months.

      • launch pad blown to shreds -> fully intact water suppression system

      • Engines exploding on takeoff -> all engines on both the booster and ship operational on first ignition

      • stage separation failed -> HOT staging successful

      • Self-destruct system didn’t destruct fast enough -> self destruct happened immediately

      The next launch will probably focus on the fail points of this launch. That is, re-lighting the engines on the booster after turnaround. And whatever caused the starship to go off course (?) and activate the self-destruct.

      meanwhile Boeing discovers some valves were stuck, takes half a year to fix it only to discover they’re still stuck, gonna need another half a year… oh wait, we took too long trying to fix it, we gotta completely replace them, that’ll be another year…

    • Gazumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s using the same strategy with the app formerly known as Twitter. Only there, he’s really testing every wrong path.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Rocketry is kinda different. Testing to failure can be very useful, and if you have the resources to throw at it repeatedly, can let you iterate much faster.

        You can only pick two:

        • speed
        • quality
        • cost

        NASA usually picks quality… and nothing else. SpaceX picked speed and quality.

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fuck Musk, first and foremost, but this flight has been a success, they have successfully separated the booster which was very cool to see.

  • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What happens next?

    A rich asshole keeps raping the corpse of TRW in hopes of becoming a land baron of LEO activity. All while America’s gov lets him, cause capitalism and a fear of possible overreach (aka no real ethical guidance) means he’s too rich to be touched.

    All while the internet gets flooded with hate speech, the skies ruined by satellite constellations, the soil polluted from rockets that can’t even reach orbit (despite nasa’s previous progress) and that’s not even counting the gemstone mining… etc.

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    In 30-40 more years maybe SpaceX will make progress that isn’t just upgrade existing rockets.

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean… They invented reusable rockets.

      Edit: they invented the first reusable liquid-fueled rockets and the first rockets that can autonomously land themselves. NASA used reusable solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle that would deploy parachutes and land in the ocean. Getting a solid rocket booster back into a reusable state seems like a lot of work to me.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Given that time and money I bet NASA could have that and made ones that don’t blow up every test.

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe if you weren’t so blinded by your need to be edgy, you would see the accomplishments SpaceX has made. Starship is not even close to being completed. It blowing up and failing are expected at this stage.

        • weew@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          How much are you betting? Because I could use some free money, lol.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given time and money, I’m sure Bob Jones could make a reusable rocket in his back garage. It would just take a lot of both. SpaceX is good at making a lot of progress with little time and money.