taking risks is exactly why they're more efficient. i wish the public sector could take as many risks without it turning into political circus, but that would never happen.

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yeah that's why we were supposed to have made it back to Mars this year with SpaceX right? Thats why it took them over 3 minutes to even realize their ship blew up most recently, but that telemetry that took 3minutes to realize a catastrophic failure occurred is really gonna make this great, right? That's why Apolo sent one rocket per mission to the moon and with that amazing SpaceX tech....we need to send at least 15 per mission? The public sector did take risks and by doing so in the past we got the Apolo program. Today we have constant failures by spaceX being touted as successful missions with about 10billion in public funding being evaporated. Now, it's more important that private business sells you on some bs hype train to rake in funds till they drop the next hype train without realizing their earlier goal and distracting you about it with leaks about hype train 3.

Where are the fully reusable falcon 9s? That second stage is still not reusable, the crew capsule will never be landing without parachutes now, and they still take about the same amount of time to turn around that the space shuttle did. SpaceX is objectively a failure, selling the next big thing as a means to hide what did not come to fruition. If you honestly think the new rocket is gonna be flying in under a decade or before spaceX goes bankrupt. You're an idiot.

[–] RushingSquirrel@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Fully reusable falcon 9 have been scrapped a very long time ago because they realized it wasn't the right hardware for that. Starship will be and way way more capable. The test flight that exploded never intended to survive. Hoped? For sure. Intended? Absolutely not. It was a test prototype, not a rocket in the sense you make it.

Turnaround for space shuttle was 54 days at best before the explosion of challenger, 88 days since. Falcon 9 is down to 32 and keeps going down. 32 vs 88 is not almost the same. Second stage will never be reused neither will parachutes on Dragon landing. SpaceX wanted propulsion landing, NASA refused. One day they might change their mind (NASA) with starship.

You keep pointing at possibilities that might have been discussed or even said at some points, and I understand your frustration, but none of these were signed deals, they were possibilities or goals to try to achieve while developing the technology, then realising a better solution works (like catching the fairing halves vs. grabbing them from the ocean).

The timeline that's over confident is for the sales pitch, that's for sure.

[–] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm just gonna leave this here as you want to buy into all the bullshit surrounding starship lmao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5GevpAGDWE

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=K5GevpAGDWE

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.