SpaceX Explosions

[Anonymous No.12659286]

So.

What have we learned so far?

What's our trajectory?

[Anonymous No.12659352]

>>12659286
>Musk

[Anonymous No.12659432]

We've learned that space should be left to the adults, i.e NASA, Boeing and ULA, not rich dude bros with a bunch of money.

[Anonymous No.12659447]

>>12659432
NASA hasn't done anything meaningful in decades. Keep telling yourself that JWST will finally launch this year.

[Anonymous No.12660018]

>>12659432
>
Are you really going to use some explosions as your argument against spaceX? Lmao
Musk lost tons of rockets, but thanks to these losses now we have reusable rockets.
Seethe all you want nasa cuck nasa wont ever be able to inovate like spaceX because they are beholden to the taxpayers and senators

[Anonymous No.12660039]

>FAA is making their own investigation into the SN9 landing failure.
>SN10 was already beginning cryo tests and would soon do test-fires and launch

I hate bureaucrats so damn much

[Anonymous No.12660059]

>>12660039
???
This was a fucking test of a prototype are they going to do this every fucking time now?

[Anonymous No.12660078]

>>12659432
> NASA, Boeing and ULA,
with taxpayer money? ay lmao

>SLS failed

[Anonymous No.12660110]

>>12659432
Private enterprise always surpasses government at some point

[Anonymous No.12660148]

>>12659286
Reignition needs work. Its been the issue both times

[Anonymous No.12660172]

>>12660039
I think the FAA is concern with lack of redundancies. Elon/SpaceX is known for stripping rockets to their bare minimum to save costs, but is this a step too far especially when these rockets are designed to carry humans eventually? Would it not be better to have extra engines/fuel/whatever for safety?

[Anonymous No.12660181]

>>12660172
>I think the FAA is concern with lack of redundancies. Elon/SpaceX is known for stripping rockets to their bare minimum to save costs
This is the R&D phase, there is no reason to add extra bullshit during testing

[Anonymous No.12660190]

>>12660172
A step too far

A step too far is a safety regulatory agency designing the rockets of a private company

[Anonymous No.12660210]

>>12660181
It would be fine if that's all it is, but I think SpaceX would want to get away with 3 engines if it could, and I think that's why the faa is keeping a close eye on them.

>>12660190
Indeed, they should not be sticking their noses in this early unless they suspect something like above. That, or corporate espionage for Boeing.

[Anonymous No.12660214]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

>Look at all these Falcon 9s exploding, SpaceX should just give up on trying to land them.

[Anonymous No.12660245]

>>12660210
>and I think that's why the faa is keeping a close eye on them.
Wtf are you talking about? Its not a finished product

[Anonymous No.12660253]

>>12660214
>73 out of 83 attempts
Even when Starship gets finished, it's gonna be a while before any human gets on board. I wouldn't get on a thing that has a 15 percent chance of crashing

[Anonymous No.12660259]

>>12660245
>Its not a finished product
Evidently they do not care about that since they are investigating the crashes of 8 and 9.

[Anonymous No.12660267]

>>12660253
>I wouldn't get on a thing that has a 15 percent chance of crashing
Are you an astronaut? I don't think anything we've sent to space has had a good percentage.

[Anonymous No.12660278]

>>12660259
There could be a political reason for it.

[Anonymous No.12660288]

>>12660278
I think they're just not used to having stuff slam into the ground and explode. Generally when rockets have been shot, they've expected them to work fine. Whereas the SpaceX approach is to crash and blow things up until it doesn't blow up anymore

[Anonymous No.12660289]

>>12660278
True, Bezos is a huge dem so they could be fucking with the competition.

[Anonymous No.12660296]

>>12660267
1 in 100 is not good odds. Go listen to old astronaut interviews. The thing they constantly talked about how is they were mostly sitting around waiting to explode.

[Anonymous No.12660341]

>>12660018
>beholden to the taxpayers and senators
no, the problem is that because of taxpayers they aren't accountable to ANYONE
NASA is just a prop for political theatre that neither side has found a use for lately

[Anonymous No.12660351]

>>12660288
>>12660289
They could be doing it to help the competition or they could be doing it to help spacex make a more polished product without outright supporting them.

[Anonymous No.12660355]

>>12660296
Yes and their odds were much much worse than this.

[Anonymous No.12660369]

>>12660172
You act as if Falcon doesn’t carry humans now

Falcon was dangerous back in the day. They simply iterated.

[Anonymous No.12660433]

>>12659432
>NASA
>Boeing
>ULA

I don't see their spacecraft here docked to the ISS, do you?

[Anonymous No.12660462]

>>12660039
>Citation needed
Seriously, that looks like something I could type up in seconds.

[Anonymous No.12660492]

>>12660433
This and starlink

[Anonymous No.12660508]

> The rockets are re-usable!!
> *explodes on impact every time*

What part of an exploding rocket is re-usable musk simps?

[Anonymous No.12660519]

>>12660110
Wake me up when Space X lands on the moon. Until then it hasn't surpassed shit.

[Anonymous No.12660521]

>>12660039
spying on and then selling the tech to uncle xi is my guess

[Anonymous No.12660530]

>>12660508
second iteration of a test platform. are you retarded. don't answer that, we already know.

[Anonymous No.12660561]

>>12659286
Um, sweety, it looks like another one of your vehicles blew up today. That looked dangerous! We're gonna have to talk about your flight approval after we review your tank and engine spin ground tests. What's that? You didn't have separate tests for these? The flight is the test? Rapid prototy- oh no, no, no. Thats not how this is going to work. The adults are back in charge now and we need to make sure this is all safe. I'm gonna take a long lunch and go home early but tomorrow we're gonna start looking over these anomalies and maybe get you in touch with NASA to fix these unsafe practices.

[Anonymous No.12660562]

>>12660508
I know you're a reddit spacing shill but falcon rockets have landed dozens of times and been reused often. Unlike the garbage that is the sls

[Anonymous No.12660574]

>>12660530
>>12660562

> "It's reuseable so it's good"
> Fuel pumps
> 37 engines
> No emergency measures
> actually hurls back to the surface full of fuel
> if it does land it sustains damage
> have to take it OFF the platform once it lands
> have to pray and hope you fixed everything on repair next time you use it
> have to hope the material integrity held
> exhausts 10 times the amount of fossil fuels as a plane
> "It's landed Dozens of times"
> explodes anyway

[Anonymous No.12660582]

>>12660574
>It's reuseable so it's good
Yes, it makes it significantly cheaper
>No emergency measures
Like a plane
>exhausts 10 times the amount of fossil fuels as a plane
As its designed to gomuch further
>It's landed Dozens of times
Yep successfully

[Anonymous No.12660618]

>>12659286
>>What's our trajectory?
I think we'll find out more by fall

[Anonymous No.12660659]

>>12660078
Does Musk not receive subsidies?

[Anonymous No.12660689]

>>12659432
NASA has killed more astronauts than Spacex.

[Anonymous No.12660742]

>>12660689
To be fair, Nasa has killed more astronauts than anyone.

[Anonymous No.12660761]

>>12659286
Maybe there is an inherent flaw in the rapture engines?

[Anonymous No.12660770]

>>12660761
The flaw being that they suck.

[Anonymous No.12660776]

>>12660770
Neat. I’d like to get sucked by a raptor engine

[Anonymous No.12660783]

>>12660519
space x pioneered reusable rockets and changed the entire industry

[Anonymous No.12660787]

>>12659286
shouldve duct-taped the exhausts together

[Anonymous No.12660795]

>>12660783
Blue Origin did actually

[Anonymous No.12660796]

>>12660659
Contracts =/= subsidies

[Anonymous No.12660805]

>>12660795
No. Blue Origin redid the classic '90's hop. SpaceX was the first to reliably put shit into orbit twice with the same rocket.
>inb4 bu muh nasa bo-
RELIABLY

[Anonymous No.12660806]

Fresh SpaceXplosion from earlier today.

[Anonymous No.12660813]

>>12660805
NS-2 made 4 successful soft landings from space. Falcon 9 first stage is suborbital as well.

[Anonymous No.12660814]

>>12660659
>Does Musk not receive subsidies?
his whole wealth is based on getting gov subsidies.
>>12660796
>Contracts =/= subsidies
stfu

[Anonymous No.12660837]

>>12659432
Ah yes, leave space to the same retards that lost all the research they did during the cold war and are currently unable to even build a shuttle.

[Anonymous No.12660845]

>Oh no the starship prototype exploded!
>Quickly strap 2 ICBMs to a manned capsule instead! It's the only safe way!

[Anonymous No.12660879]

>>12660806
Raptors are having major issues, imagine thinking this thing is getting to orbit anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.12660880]

>>12660845
kek

[Anonymous No.12660891]

>>12660879
Their issues are on reignition which is fixable. The engines themselves have already shown great performance.

[Anonymous No.12660903]

>>12660891
Stop sucking Elon Musk's dick. He's a terrible CEO, and I'm glad Bezos is focusing on Blue Origin now that there is nothing else left to develop for Amazon.

[Anonymous No.12660922]

>>12660689
*NASA has more astronauts than Spacex.

[Anonymous No.12660947]

>>12660813
>4 hops
>vs repeatedly and reliably putting cargo in space
Blue Origin is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.12660949]

>>12660922
*NASA can only hitch rides from SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12660964]

>>12660949
*NASA has a way cooler logo than SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12661355]

>>12660039
>safety first
Everything's banned yo

[Anonymous No.12661452]

>>12660806
LMAO

[Anonymous No.12661592]

>>12660903
>Bezos is focusing on Blue Origin now that there is nothing he can do to catch up
I'm not sucking rlons dick im just being realistic

[Anonymous No.12661666]

>>12660964
this is bullshit and you know it

[Anonymous No.12661695]

>>12659286
Mars colony in our lifetime is definitely off the table now.

[Anonymous No.12661700]

>>12660814
Musk was basically created by Obama.

[Anonymous No.12661702]

STATUS REPORT

[Anonymous No.12661733]

>>12659352
hating musk is cringe

[Anonymous No.12661736]

>>12659286
I've been telling you guys.
Musk is the USSR.
Bezos is the US.
Now that Bezos is going to leave Amazon as CEO, he's going to pump up Blue Origin hard.
Bezos is the future. Musk is a failure.

[Anonymous No.12661744]

>>12660582
Fossil fuels per kg per km, obv

[Anonymous No.12661745]

>>12660351
>they could be doing it to help spacex make a more polished product without outright supporting them
The most terrifying words you will ever hear is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[Anonymous No.12661778]

>>12659286
Raptors don't work for the Starship flight profile? Maybe they need a new engine design?

[Anonymous No.12661836]

>>12659352
Husky musky UwU

[Anonymous No.12661886]

>>12659432
that "rich dude bro" is delivering people to the ISS, boeing couldn't even get something into ORBIT the last time they tried to send stuff to the ISS

[Anonymous No.12661898]

>>12659432
guaranteed replies

[Anonymous No.12662202]

>SN9 is functioning
>Crash a few to let the public think it isn't
>send up tons of military hardware / personnel
>quietly attain space superiority

Any reason why a government would not do this? The economic benefits of a space based economy would be exponential.

[Anonymous No.12662264]

>>12662202
Because there's no point in it being secret retard.

[Anonymous No.12662266]

>>12661733
I’ll hate whomever I’ll want

[Anonymous No.12662394]

>>12660891
The issue happened during re-ignition but it seems like there are major design problems with raptor they are still working through. Hell they had to do an engine swap from the earlier static fire due to damage. High pressure FFSC gets a lot of dicks hard but it is a super hard engineering problem. Maybe a couple more years to really solve.

[Anonymous No.12662417]

>>12660574
>fOsSiL fUeLs
>proceeds to design $2B rocket that intentionally throws its empty parts into the ocean

[Anonymous No.12662577]

>>12660018
dude, Nasa funds SpaceX and coop quite often
They saved SpaceX with a billion dollar contract back in 2008

[Anonymous No.12662588]

>>12659286

don't make your rocket look like a dildo

[Anonymous No.12662928]

>>12660814
Gov gave him 5b. Gov gave ford/gm execs 80+b. Gov gave boeing/ula/lockheed ceos 50+ billion. Gov gave 5+ trillion to gas industry. Over the same 10 year time period.

[Anonymous No.12662960]

I love reading the absolute cope every time one of these shitcans explodes
>heh we've already landed it before
*KABLOOOOOOM*
>heh but at least we obtained valuable data to improve the next one
*KABLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM*
>mars is the future
*KABLOOOOOOOM*

[Anonymous No.12663345]

so, why is elon off twitter ? last time he said that, he returned just a few days later

[Anonymous No.12663356]

>>12659432
>the adults, i.e NASA, Boeing and ULA, not rich dude bros with a bunch of money

NASA: Artemis funding and development is in a congressional chokehold with strategic plans that change every new administration. Orange rocket couldn't even finish a static fire after a decade of development.

Boeing: Bid for return to crewed spaceflight failed because pajeets couldn't figure out how to sync clocks correctly

ULA: Will get your shit to space but doesn't give a rat's ass about innovation.

Rich dude bros: First successful first stage return and reuse program, first human spaceflight on a privately developed vehicle, first global high speed internet program, etc.

[Anonymous No.12663377]

>>12662960
doomers said this same shit back in 2014 when they were prototyping first stage return

[Anonymous No.12663410]

>>12660903
>Imagine being this wrong

You were wrong about landing falcon 9 & you'll be wrong about landing starship.

[Anonymous No.12663474]

>>12659286
Raptors and the bellyflop worked much better than sn8, they need to work on reignition

[Anonymous No.12663475]

>>12659432
>NASA, Boeing and ULA,
What have they accomplished in the last 20 years?

[Anonymous No.12663478]

>>12660172
Its a prototype..

[Anonymous No.12663489]

>>12662394
>Maybe a couple more years to really solve.
I don't believe that at all to be honest. Elon still states they will do an orbital flight this year.

[Anonymous No.12663501]

>>12662577
And SpaceX saves them a bunch of money on contracts. Military contracts as well as starlink will keep them funded for eternity. Also who else would get those contracts? The competition is dogshit.

[Anonymous No.12663527]

>>12660574
I hope this is bait because SNs rn are test beds. They do not resemble the final product, and most of the issues you listed are literally purposeful/caused by them not giving a fuck so they can work out kinks.

>fossil fuels from methane and oxygen
please please please please please please be bait

[Anonymous No.12664072]

>>12659286
We've learned that Richard Branson is better than Elon Musk at building liquid fueled rockets that can be started in mid-air from a horizontal orientation

[Anonymous No.12664267]

>>12659432
>adults, i.e NASA, Boeing and ULA

[Anonymous No.12664327]

It looks like doing belly flops and having liquid fuel sloshing around in free fall is a big problem for engines. I think Musk should concentrate on a Starship Moon lander first to win the Artemis contract. No fins, no belly flop. Just go up and down, simple. Once you get that solved, then move on to the Starship Mars lander.

[Anonymous No.12664527]

>>12664327
SpaceX should just build a cheap small scale testbed with one raptor engine and do some drop tests to gain additional knowledge about restarting rocket engines in flight. Clearly the Starship flight regime is different than what SpaceX is familiar with from its Falcon 9 boosters.

[Anonymous No.12664552]

>>12660039
>investigation

An unmanned test rocket crashed. Nobody died. Nobody was injured. The end. There, I just saved the corrupt government millions of dollars in a so called “investigation”.

[Anonymous No.12664920]

>>12660879
the hard part isn't getting to orbit, the hard part is getting back down

[Anonymous No.12664929]

>>12661702

[Anonymous No.12664932]

>>12664327
>aving liquid fuel sloshing around in free fall is a big problem for engines
t. retard

stop larping please

[Anonymous No.12665013]

Can a Falcon 9 first stage do the same maneuvers and restarts that they're trying to achieve with Starship? Seems like a logical first step would be to get it working first on an earlier simpler rocket to make sure they understand all the engine and airframe issues involved.

[Anonymous No.12665064]

>>12665013
no, Falcon 9 cannot fall too far sideways, although it's not a new thing for rockets in general (look up the DC-X)
mostly the Falcon 9 doesn't have the aero surfaces necessary to get itself sideways

[Anonymous No.12665117]

>>12665064
Seems like SpaceX could just add a small payload module with fins on top of the F9 first stage to let it do maneuvers similar to Starship. This would give them a reusable test vehicle to study how to restart and feed rocket engines under extreme maneuvering conditions.

[Anonymous No.12665163]

>>12665117
yeah, but the problems that SpaceX are having the issues with are problems of scale
ironically, the cheapest way of figuring these problems out is building skyscraper sized vehicles and blowing them up

[Anonymous No.12665180]

>>12665163
Yeah the Starships themselves are only like 10 million a pop right now, supposedly funded by private ride-share revenue on Falcon 9 IIRC

[Anonymous No.12665269]

>>12659432
based

[Anonymous No.12665283]

>>12660519
Technically SpaceX surpassed NASA when SN1 didn't kill 3 astronauts on the launch pad.

[Anonymous No.12665291]

>>12665283
it did explode though
probably should have spent a little bit more money on welding engineering desu, seemed easily preventable

[Anonymous No.12665301]

>>12665291
Reread my post, then show me the bodies of all the dead astronauts at Boca Chica

[Anonymous No.12665371]

>>12665301
eh? the only thing SpaceX has killed is oldspace
it's possible to be critical of SpaceX while also approving of them, you know

[Anonymous No.12665373]

>>12659286
jeje

[Anonymous No.12665416]

>>12665371
>>12665291
Not him but I don't think its fair to say a prototype exploding means anything. Look how many times the falcon 9 blew up during testing. The starship is looking very promising and is flying well.

[Anonymous No.12665427]

>>12665416
some of the prototypes were spent (exploded) learning lessons that didn't really need to be taught
in total however it's a very successful program so far
very hopeful for the future

[Anonymous No.12665439]

Maybe starting a liquid fuel rocket engine in free fall while horizontal is harder than SpaceX thought. Look how long it took Virgin Orbit to develop an air launched liquid fueled rocket.

[Anonymous No.12665445]

>>12665427
Yeah well I believe SN8 and SN9 were good lessons for the Starship development.

[Anonymous No.12665454]

>>12665445
absolutely
Mk1, SN1, SN2? Maybe not so much.

[Anonymous No.12665457]

We learned that manned Starship will need ejection seats

[Anonymous No.12665464]

>>12665439
Are you retarded? SN8 and SN9 were already very close to landing successfully

[Anonymous No.12665467]

>>12665454
>Mk1, SN1, SN2? Maybe not so much.
why not?

[Anonymous No.12665577]

>>12664552
>saved
That's not what they call lost money.

[Anonymous No.12665590]

Can we expected the government experts to finish their safety and environmental investigation by the end of the year, or will the china virus make things slower than usual?

I'm all for spaceflight but lets be honest here safety takes priority: you can't just blow up early test prototypes day after day like it's the 50's all over again. We are well past that, we gotta work responsibly.

[Anonymous No.12665692]

>>12665590
>we can't just keep trying to compile the code and see what error it gives

[Anonymous No.12667268]

>>12665467
they blew up for dumb, obvious reasons
of course, everybody else was screaming about them not being made in a clean room, when that's not really a problem, so what do I know

[Anonymous No.12667512]

>>12659432
Just a reminder this video had to exist first before we got boosters that can reliably land again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&ab_channel=SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12668936]

lol

[Anonymous No.12669053]

>>12667512
people have about one maybe two weeks of memory bro, good reminder

[Anonymous No.12669084]

>>12665590
>you can't just blow up early test prototypes day after day like it's the 50's all over again. We are well past that, we gotta work responsibly.
I know this is bait, but incase some retard reads this post and takes it seriously. Theres nothing wrong with blowing up rockets in a safe area lol. Not to mention our military is constantly doing ordinance testing.

If spacex wants to crash hella rockets for their testing, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. Its not like they're operating unsafely or in some special controlled airspace or anything like that.

the FAA is totally being a faggot here

[Anonymous No.12669100]

>>12669084
>spacex is being funded to solve engineering problems by groups whom themselves have already solved said engineering problems.
>engineering teams from groups funding spacex seeeeeething at waste of time, money & resources.

[Anonymous No.12669168]

>>12664327
>starship elevator breaks
now what?

[Anonymous No.12669238]

>>12663475
>What have they accomplished in the last 20 years?

Not blowing a rocket at least once a month

[Anonymous No.12669248]

>>12669168
Use your magnetic boots to climb up the side.

[Anonymous No.12669294]

>>12669238
Yeah because they haven't made one on 20 years

[Anonymous No.12669304]

>>12669238
You faggots understand that spacex is doing its tests in person and on a faster track than other companies and that is why you are seeing explosions right?

[Anonymous No.12669664]

Looks like SpaceX is fucked.

[Anonymous No.12669667]

>>12669664
please don't post retarded clickbait

[Anonymous No.12669734]

>>12669664
>Biden chokes chinese cock
will Biden cancel the contracts?
or will Biden honor already signed agreements and not permit anything beyond that?
or Biden isn't gonna lie down like an obedient dog & let china catch up & take the lead?

[Anonymous No.12669821]

>>12669664
China truly lives rent free in some people's head.

[Anonymous No.12669837]

>>12669664
SN9 launched literally a day before this article was published, wtf is this retard talking about

[Anonymous No.12669918]

>>12659286
>SpaceX Explosions
>>12669238 >>12667268 >>12665464
>SN8 and SN9 were already very close to landing successfully
>Not blowing a rocket at least once a month
>not being made in a clean room
SPACEX = INCOMPETENT 100%
ELSE = SABOTAGE 100%

[Anonymous No.12671093]

>>12660296
well, no starship has exploded on launch or mid flight yet. as rocket it works just fine. its just the unconventional hard maneuver on landing which is seemingly a bitch to get working with a complex engine as the raptor.

[Anonymous No.12671144]

>>12661700
Thanks, Obama

[Anonymous No.12671149]

>>12669100
nobody funds space-x , they are not public, and they finance everything with ride share money, dragon launches and soon starlink

[Anonymous No.12671155]

>>12659286
Just proves how much of an amateur Elon is. You can't build rockets outside and make it to orbit. Pack it up, little boy.

[Anonymous No.12671632]

>>12671149
funding was a more sarcastic word chosen as equivalency thru displacement.
watering [A] = starving [B]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/08/18/billionaire-elon-musk-raises-19-billion-in-new-funding-for-spacex/?sh=58e030502404
Billionaire Elon Musk Raises $1.9 Billion In New Funding For SpaceX
The funding comes just after SpaceX completed its most high-profile mission yet: In May, the company sent a NASA crew to the International Space Station, marking the first crewed orbital flight from American soil since 2011.

Future contracts will pay for his current spending, else wouldn't of gotten this far.
https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2020/oct/12/spacex-lands-149-million-defense-contract/
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52818543
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/spacex-starlink-wins-nearly-900-million-in-fcc-subsidies-auction.html
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/03/12/spacex-seeks-16-billion-in-government-subsidies.aspx

[Anonymous No.12671714]

>>12659432
here's your (You), faggot

[Anonymous No.12671789]

>>12669821
China doesn't even exist. It's a made up country that right wingers have imagined because they need a boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.12671801]

>>12660806
they should be testing re-ignition with the craft fixed in a swivel-pivot jig under controlled conditions.
This repeated FAIL is an public spectacle embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.12671909]

>>12660806
>Fresh SpaceXplosion from earlier today.
Jeez, looks like the gyroscopes & thrust-vectoring couldn't tell which way was up.

[Anonymous No.12671927]

>>12662960
>shitcan
term of endearment
>comedy-gold<

[Anonymous No.12672133]

>>12662960
SpaceX public-media department spokesman.
>cope-management<

[Anonymous No.12672181]

>>12662960
SpaceX public-media department spokesman explains why *KABLOOOOOOM* is perfectly normal.
>cope-management<

[Anonymous No.12672196]

>>12672181
i dunno about you, anon, but I enjoy looking at explosions

[Anonymous No.12672205]

>>12672196

[Anonymous No.12672588]

>>12660814
> reeee don't give an American company money for developing domestic manned orbit capability that hasn't been possible for over a decade
> reeee we should still be paying the Russians twice as much per seat on the Soyuz
This is you, this is what you sound like

[Anonymous No.12672597]

>>12660742
More than Soviet Space Program?

[Anonymous No.12672644]

>>12672597
yes, way, way more.

[Anonymous No.12672779]

>>12664327
There is no viable moon starship without in orbit refueling. Its pointless to do orbital refueling with disposable spacecraft. There is no point building a half a dozen starships for a hail mary moon mission when they can explode half a dozen starships in testing and perfect the entire system so they can indefinitely reuse starship.

[Anonymous No.12672783]

>>12672779
Indefinite reuse is a pipe dream in modern spaceflight

[Anonymous No.12672788]

>>12672783
Big giant steel pipes.

[Anonymous No.12673044]

>>12664327
what a stupid post

[Anonymous No.12673751]

>>12672788
I'll show your dad some big giant steel pipes

[Anonymous No.12673821]

>>12659286
>What have we learned so far?
Try not to explode
>What's our trajectory?
Fewer explosions hopefully

[Anonymous No.12673890]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/ldoo0s/starlink_fails_to_land_another_angle/

[Anonymous No.12674433]

>>12669168
Just have some rungs welded to the side of it so you don’t get fucking stranded.

[Anonymous No.12675172]

>>12672597
the Soviets killed less than ten astronauts
uhhh Gagarin died in a plane crash, a couple died in atmosphere chambers (the Soviet version of the Apollo 1 fire), a couple died during reentry because they weren't wearing pressure suits and their capsule sprung a leak
who am I forgetting?
NASA killed at least 17 astronauts if you only count those killed in spacecraft, a few more crashed their complimentary fighter jets.

[Anonymous No.12676249]

>>12659432
lulz

[Anonymous No.12676367]

>>12673890
People are so retarded

[Anonymous No.12676657]

>>12659432
Low quality bait

[Anonymous No.12676672]

>>12669664
>Analysis/Opinion
It's an opinion piece moron

[Anonymous No.12677095]

>>12659286 SpaceX Explosions
>What have we learned so far?
>>12665464 the computer software using gyroscope(s) + transducers/sensors perfectly angle the thrust-vectoring and flaps to hover upright then land.

>>12669918 the chineseR&D has its software to work it out for themselves now.

>>12660806 the computer software is using same sensors to do the same thing and believes itself to be at the upward 90 degree slope.
IT is clearly regulating its thrust-vectoring and flaps to maintain this exact angle....... then land.

This "landing angle" is clearly sabotaged.

[Anonymous No.12677140]

>>12659352
>NOOOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T JUST GO ON TWITTER AND MAKE SOME LOW KEY RIGHT WING POPULIST POSTS
WHAT ABOUT THE HECKIN AGNEDARINO?

[Anonymous No.12677155]

>>12659432
>space should be left to the adults, i.e NASA
yeah that's why they hand off contracts to spaceX right?

[Anonymous No.12677352]

>>12677140
the solution is simple

[Anonymous No.12678185]

>>12659286
>What have we learned so far?
What's our trajectory?
>open spaceX-camp<