/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kr1SRQn76o

watched this, some of his comments below
>casey handmer is very stupid
>pretty pictures do not make a successful flight
>why is this a failure?
>booster shut down too early and was of course, bits and pieces were coming off the engine
>super heavy blew itself up
>starship started tumbling after SECO so no engine relight
>RCS using ullage thrusters froze (not sure if this was caused)
>long rant about it being a suborbital flight
>payload bay door got stuck because it got broken due to no sound suppression system at launch
>long rant about success/failure, this was not a successful flight by any means
>bringing up astra as an example of customers caring about failure, they failed a lot and are now doomed
>iterative development is not inherently good or bad, but spacex overestimated the value of iterative development for starship (lmao ?)
>its not being iteratively developed, adding ice into the tanks is making the system worse [by using ullage gas for the RCS]
>starship is 0/3, there is no definition of success that includes this
>there is a very dark I could go with the definitino of success (?? lmao)
>if I would have been in charge of starship programme I would have developed it more conservatively, run more trade studies, developed it more like Falcon 9
>Falcon 9 wasn't developed through this iterative development style
>Falcon 9 has only had one in-flight failure (so the failed booster landings aren't failures now? but for starshjip the booster landing attempts are a failure, okay)
>spacex committed themselves to a design process that they underestimated how challenging it would be and also underestimated how challenging starship would be to build and develop
>there is a lot wrong with the starship programme internally I think
>spacex culture is bad, they have only young inexperienced college students working there because people leave after 2 years because the pay is bad