• Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    As much as I really really hate that asshole, this was a success. The hot staging technically worked and the Starship got to space. Iterate on the booster top heat management and fix whatever went wrong with Starship and it will be fine.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wow you’re exactly right. Why don’t they just take what’s broken and fix it

      • neumast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s exactly why testing is needed. You can calculate a ton of things but you only know through testing, when and where things fail. Then you iterate and test again.

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

    • Gazumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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.

  • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
    3
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    11 months 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
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          They created reusable rockets. Lots and lots of concepts on the drawing board, but theirs was unique and the first one to get made.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              We can argue about semantics, but they were moreso rebuilt from the same parts than reused as is. NASA found that it would have been much cheaper to build new SRBs after each launch than rebuild them.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                The SRBs used on the final shuttle mission were the same boosters used on the first mission. That set was used a total of 60 times. Only 2 sets of boosters were never recovered for re-use. The set from STS-4 had a parachute malfunction, and the set from the Challenger exploded.

            • Strykker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              SRB boosters are quite close to literally just a big steel tube, and they reused them by dropping them into the ocean under a parachute.

              They still had to clean out and refurb every booster launched. And that was without the complex rocket engines that would get destroyed by being submerged in the ocean.

          • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Creating isn’t inventing, and there’s wasn’t the first to be flown. Man, the SpaceX fans don’t really know the history of the industry they make these claims about.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You referring to the DC-X subscale tech demonstrator?

              I think inventing is a less well defined term, since anyone with a napkin can claim to invent something to a very low fidelity. The details are the hard part, not the idea itself. So that’s why I specified created, since that is inventing to a very high level of fidelity.

              • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                There’s several other examples. I also don’t think inventing is an ill-defined term. That’s an absurd thing to even say.

              • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’ve had experience with Musk Fans in the past. They all read from the same script, including the “I don’t even like Musk” lie.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          LOL… NASA has existed for many more decades than Spacex has. The Spacex Falcon rocket is possibly the most reliable rocket available today, launches payloads more often than any other rocket and it’s much cheaper than its competitors. You’re comparing a brand new rocket design to other, thoroughly tested rockets that have had many iterations. This was literally the second flight of this rocket, they were expecting it to fail.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months 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.

        • weew@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

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