/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12789252
>You mean without most of its engines
Does it need "lots" of engines at once if they expect to have at least a few to work properly?
>or real landing legs
so it can't land properly stable yet, anyway?
>the failing engines & structure crumbling under it own tilted weight was just us having a laugh & dicking about
ok

>>12748088
>they always fail to begin with....
>I'm a fuckn genius cause I'm retarded cunt stating the obvious.
>number of starship KABOOOM already equal shuttle KABOOOM.
>we doin shit job compared to shuttle development.
>half-ass our way forward is solid engineering.
they "expected" it to work, otherwise they wouldn't of tested it...
they "fail" because they're still guessing at what the problem is..
"GUESSING" YES, we'll see cause SN10 will also go KABOOOM!!

>>12697178
Oh, you're just sucking on a retard's tin can cock!! nvm.

>>12680738
>Starlink spam edition
How many more KABOOOOOOM must I wait before the rest of you realize its obviously sabotage?