I think they were hired actors from Tim Cook's Apple Cheering Squad.
** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
I think they were hired actors from Tim Cook's Apple Cheering Squad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
NASA is spending tax $. If they had this happen there would be all kinds of questions to answer, Congressional hearings ect. SpaceX doesn't need to worry about such things. I'm sure they will still see this as a win.
Its an American thing, I watched Star Wars in NYC years ago and they were cheering at literally everything, annoying AF
Stuff fails, this is science and engineering. The failure provides a mountain of data to crunch through and figure out where things failed and correct it for next time round. That's what science is all about.
It launched on fewer engines than it should have, so still becomes the most powerful rocket in history to ever leave a launch pad.
It launched on fewer engines than it should have, so still becomes the most powerful rocket in history to ever leave a launch pad.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
A very significant sum of SpaceX's funding has come from NASA over the years. I can't find a current figure with a quick google but around 2010 it was 85%, and while they do have a lot of investors currently their NASA contracts are quite lucrative. It's not like Elon is swiping his personal credit card when they fill the thing up with fuel...
what are you arguing here?
Do you not understand the benefit of rapid testing?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
So watching the launch again there are chucks of something flying through the air as it starts to lift into the air. I wonder if that is the pad breaking up, if so I wouldn't be surprised if engines had been damaged by flying debris. They seem to lose another engine in a catastrophic failure at 0.29, you have to think an egine failing like that can't be great for the engines around it.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
If you read the post I quoted, it was saying that SpaceX wasn't spending taxpayer dollars, which it absolutely does.
As far as I'm made aware, getting it off the launch pad was the win.
Anything else after was a bonus for data.
NASA doesn’t pay space x to blow up rockets. They pay space x to deliver a goal/project. How Space x uses the money is there business as long as they deliver the end goal that they are paid for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
So they had 7 engines failed and then at T+ 1.55 there seems to be at least 1 more engine fail, looking at the exhaust plumes I'd say it was more like 2 if not 3 more let go, might have been hard to control the torque at that point.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
Yes, that's how contracts work. It's still taxpayer dollars though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
True but NASA isn't on the hook for any of this money. If SpaceX don't deliver Starship and they got money for the moon landing version of Starship then questions I'm sure will be asked.
Just watching the replay and damn loads of what I assume is concrete or other debris was blasted out, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the engines were damaged by debris.
might be they need to re think the launch platform?
might be they need to re think the launch platform?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
Indeed - it's the crossover between the government paying for things and them paying a private company to do it instead.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
To be fair I'm surprised he wasn't underneath Elon's table. The hard simping made me unsubscribe a few years ago...