• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad. (Edit: like this one, which did)

    The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Like you say, nobody is making this explosion out to be a deadly emergency but it also probably doesn’t inspire confidence when the company fails so much more often than it succeeds. Starship engines have been “unexpectedly” exploding for years.

      • Infinite@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Fails more often than it succeeds? That’s… not even close to accurate.

        They’ve already had more than 50 successful missions this year.

        Testing doesn’t count as a failure, it counts as test data.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t think exploding was part of the test. I don’t think being investigated by the FAA in 2020 for failure to listen to warnings about unintended shockwave damage was part of their tests. I don’t think losing an entire rocket to a booster explosion last year was part of the test.

          I think their tests are throwing things at the stainless steel wall and hoping it sticks.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah, we’ve got ongoing mars missions and revived transport of facilities even to the moon. Right? We have, right?

              Hey, how did the dearMoon mission turn out? We kind of stopped hearing about that, huh.

              I tell you what, you’re absolutely right that he helped industry. Not any of the people who work in the industry, mind you.

              • Argonne@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                This is dumb. SpaceX is launching over a hundred times per year. PER YEAR. Dear Moon was always a long term goal for anyone in the science community they understood it will never happen before 2030. The large launch quantity has helped reduce launch costs and has enabled small sat launches aka cubesats. Universities can now launch things to space because the launch costs are so low. So your statement that it hasn’t helped anyone is patently false. You just have a raging boner against SpaceX, but you are incredibly uninformed. You can either continue in your delusion or see that SpaceX is actually good for the industry, universities, knowledge, and technology over all. That is all. Have a good life, or continue being a miserable hater. Whatever

                  • Argonne@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Telling how you only focus on the few experimental failures vs the hundreds of successes. Just admit you’re a hater based not on logic but just hate. You have no other argument. Loser