Space

7287 readers

1 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.

Subcommunity of Science

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

wintrparkgrl@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Spacex team’s Starship partially melts during renterty of test flight 4, makes soft splash down anyway. (youtu.be)

submitted 5 months ago by sonori@beehaw.org to c/space@beehaw.org

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Evidently the joints on the flaps still need a little work into not letting gases through, but it seemed to still have enough actuation to keep the spacecraft stable until the engines took over for the landing burn.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zworf@beehaw.org 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Charles Bolden once remarked that the congress would have shut down the Apollo program if they lost vehicles at the rate spacex does now.

Well, yes. But it was really a show of force towards the soviets and anything that could be construed as 'failure' would be sensitive. And it was all public money so things were very political and optics mattered. Society was also hugely different in the 60s.

Also in the years before mercury a lot of stuff went boom, of course. Apollo was built upon those failures.

I have a feeling that for SpaceX the opposite is true. Every time they shoot something up it's press coverage, even if it blows up. As long as they're not blowing up people they don't get the boeing effect.

Consider the first flight. They decided to launch it without a flame deflector or a deluge system. They thought that it would be OK based on a hot test of the superheavy at half thrust. I don’t think any other rocket company would have made the same decision. Even if the concrete slabs didn’t shatter into a thousand pieces, the reflected shock wave would have been damaging enough to the engine compartment. They predictably lifted off with several failed and failing engines.

Yeah that was indeed very stupid. Agreed. Especially for the environment. They were right to get flak for that.

If this afterthought feels like a conspiracy theory, remember the time when Musk made a change to starship after Tim Dodd (earlyastronaut) asked him a question on the same? Or the time when someone on Twitter asked Musk why they didn’t start two raptor engines and then shutoff the underperforming one during Starship’s flip maneuver at landing? They do this now. Afterthoughts are evidently not a rare thing at SpaceX.

Could be yes.. But don't forget, it is their money. They're clearly rushing to market and cutting corners, but as long as they don't blow up people or property, it's kinda their problem. And it has worked for them with Falcon 9.

I do agree they are kinda cowboys but they do also have a point in some ways: Field testing is better than theory. I'd rather step into a rocket that has flown 30 times than one that has never flown before but a whole team of scientists think things will be fine.

But yeah you still need theory and they could do a better job at that, I do agree there.