this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
1110 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59724 readers
3566 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Firstly, I admit it’s wrong to be so rude, and you’re right to call me out on that.

As you said, Starship is far from proven. It can almost certainly get to orbit in its current state but who even knows if reusability (and propellant transfer) will pan out.

I’m simply sick of people projecting their hatred of Musk on to all the engineers. They assume that because they dislike the man that he must be stupid, and that because he must be stupid, everything he owns must also be stupid. It shows a tribalistic, shallow understanding of the engineering process, when we should instead all be cheering for every success in spaceflight.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It can almost certainly get to orbit in its current state

No it can't, they've tried twice where it failed very shortly after takeoff. The last attempt was only a month ago, pretty much like some people expected pre launch, because that would be very hard to avoid the way it's designed. Also Musk himself acknowledged it was high risk, with a good chance it wouldn't make it. NASA would NEVER have launched with a high probability of failure, the way the Starship program has been going, it would be very unlikely to be allowed to continue. Musk justified the launch with the value of the telemetry in case of failure. Problem is that they lost contact 8 minutes before it visibly exploded in the sky. So they got no valuable telemetry either!!!

I’m simply sick of people projecting their hatred of Musk on to all the engineers.

That's not what I see, it seems like Musk has become increasingly irate, and he is calling the shots. The engineers are AFAIK almost never blamed.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You clearly know very little about the history of SpaceX, they run a hardware rich development program and this kind of failure is normal for the first few flights. It’s simply a matter of iterating until it works consistently.

Seriously, look up their process - Falcon 1 failed 3/5 times, and Falcon 9 recovery attempts didn’t succeed until the 8th test. Starship’s suborbital landing tests failed 4 times before they succeeded.

Having a couple launch failures is normal at this phase of development, for SpaceX anyway.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Funny how you claim I know little, when you just claimed Starship is basically ready, when all it can do is a few minutes before it blows up, it can't even leave the atmosphere yet.
One stupid comment more and I block you.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I mean, let’s crunch the numbers: the final velocity was 24,124 km/hr and LEO orbital speed is about 28,000 km/hr. Contrary to what you claim, it did in fact leave the atmosphere at an altitude of ~148km. That means that this iteration of Starship was 86% of the way to its destination. It made it through max q and stage separation, which are generally considered the most dangerous parts of flight.

Yeah, they were damn close.