The SpaceX explosion is nothing but disturbing, there is no “success” in creating thousands of tons of pollution. We absolutely do not know if the atmosphere can handle these repeated explosions of tons of metals. SpaceX is not making life “multiplanetary,” instead they may be putting life on the fast-track to being planet-less
@carlysagan
I think the failure rate of #SpaceX rockets is between 20-30%. NO WAY IN HELL I'd ever trust going up in a rocket with that high a chance of dying.
And #NASA is going to get tired of entrusting multi-million dollar payloads to rockets with such a high failure rate.
They need to cut #Nati-loving #Musk/SpaceX loose and look for another commercial rocket.
@MugsysRapSheet @carlysagan source on failure rate plz.
@Ghandralph @carlysagan
#SpaceX's "failure rate" is only low relative to the massive number of launches they perform.
Consider: If you perform launches and 3 result in catastrophic failure, you have a failure rate of just 0.3%.
But the Space Shuttle only suffered TWO "catastrophic failures in it's 30 year existence.
And not every failure is "catastrophic". Sometimes, a mission succeeds DESPITE several engines failing, or boosters exploding upon return.
@MugsysRapSheet the problem with your comparison is that you are comparing a production vehicle against a R&D platform.
The two starships that were launched were expected to blow up. They were pathfinder missions to collect data that would eventually result in a ship that won't blow up.
If you really want to make this comparison against space shuttle then you need to include all of the rockets that blew up before the shuttle was finalized, and that's not even getting into the difference in capability between the two platforms.
@MugsysRapSheet if you didn't know they were expected to blow up, then I don't think you were listening to a broad variety of sources, because pretty much every source I had been hearing from pointed out that these were only tests with a high likelihood of blowing up before splashing down.
So again I would encourage you to broaden your news sources, at least. If I was to go farther I would say to stop listening to the ones that misled you, but at least get more reporting from different places.
These two ships were brand new and they were attempting things that had a very high likelihood of not going right the first time.
Yes, they were expected to blow up. In fact the detonation system that you refer to was in place specifically because there was a high likelihood that it would have to be used because these ships were unlikely to make it all the way.
@volkris @Ghandralph @carlysagan
No. By your own words, "a high likelihood" isn't a planned detonation.
I suggest you look for ANY report PRE-launch claiming they "expected" the rocket to explode after launch.
I watched that launch live online. That claim only came AFTER detonation as a pathetic CYA claim to mitigate their massive failure.
And now they're doing it again.
@MugsysRapSheet well think about it this way, consider the design of the mission.
Why were they ditching the booster in the Gulf instead of having it return to land so that it could be reused? Why didn't they even open the possibility for making the ship orbital?
Everything about this mission was designed with the expectation that the rocket was going to explode.
Everything about the applications to the FAA, all of the notices sent out to marine traffic, the decision not to try to land the booster, all of it.
Again I'm sorry that you didn't see these reports ahead of the launch, but that just means you need better news sources. Because it wasn't a secret, and if you need evidence, just look at the design of the mission.
If SpaceX really thought this lunch was anything approaching the final, operational rocket that it would have tried to reuse the booster. They didn't because they knew it wouldn't be from the beginning.
@volkris @Ghandralph @carlysagan
It should be easy to produce a link then to a report claiming the launch was EXPECTED to explode (on its own or by detonation) rather than retrieved from the ocean.
BTW: Self-landing booster technology still hadn't been completed yet.
@MugsysRapSheet I started to pull up a link to the FAA application, but let me instead focus on what you said:
SpaceX flies self-landing boosters almost literally every day now.
So why do YOU think SpaceX decided not to try for orbit?
@volkris @Ghandralph @carlysagan
Where are you getting the idea that *wasn't* their intention? B/c I clearly remember that was the plan (a single orbit.)
@MugsysRapSheet no, SpaceX had an area near Hawaii cleared as the farthest they'd try to fly the rocket.
They weren't going orbital, as they didn't expect the rocket to make it.
Again, everything about the plan for the mission--the plan that was established ahead of launch day--reflects expectation that they would hit their goals and then see an explosion.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @carlysagan a single orbit would mean:
- launch in the gulf of mexico, crash(land) in the golf of mexico
- if you are in an (stable) orbit, you would need a de-orbit burn. If you dont need one, it’s not am orbit
- to reach orbit you need to achieve orbital velocity. That was never the plan so that the ship (if disabled) or the debris would fall back on its own. Remember the Shuttle’s exterior tank? Same thing.
@Ghandralph @volkris @carlysagan
You're still trying to argue that they never intended to put the rocket into orbit for a single lap around the Earth. But we know that was in fact the plan.
You can invent your own excuses for why the failure was not in fact a failure (which is exactly what they do after every failure), but it was.
@MugsysRapSheet @volkris @carlysagan how can you call a planned “orbit” with a periapsis of 50km an orbit (source wikipedia):
@Ghandralph @volkris @carlysagan
Did the rocket orbit the Earth?
No.
Was the plan for it to complete one orbit?
Yes.
Did they have to intentionally blow it up before it could complete it's mission?
Yes.
That's a failed mission. (Now imagine there had been astronauts onboard.)
@MugsysRapSheet @volkris @carlysagan
1) agree
2) disagree. Was not planned to achieve orbital velocity. Hence no orbit. See screenshot from space.com below.
3) It did blow up. AFAIK there has been no official confirmation whether any of the FTS has or were fired or if the vehicles experienced fatal structural failures. But I may be wrong there.
@MugsysRapSheet right, I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense that their plan was to put a rocket into orbit when everything we see says otherwise.
All of the announcements, all of the licensing, all of the regulatory approvals, all of the preparations, every single thing about this showed that they intentionally did not plan to orbit the vehicle.
I'm trying to be polite and say that you need some better news sources because apparently you have been misinformed.
But at some point it's really tough to blame your news sources. At some point it just comes down to you apparently being uninterested in contemplating facts that go against this fiction that you cling to for some reason.
No, you're wrong. Everything about this mission debunks your claims here.
@volkris @Ghandralph @carlysagan
No, the "starship" tests were not "expected to blow up".
They didn't blow up "on their own" as planned. Both were "detonated" when the vehicle failed in mid-launch, to prevent them from cartwheeling out of control and falling on populated areas. 🙄