this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
622 points (92.0% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad. (Edit: like this one, which did)

The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Like you say, nobody is making this explosion out to be a deadly emergency but it also probably doesn't inspire confidence when the company fails so much more often than it succeeds. Starship engines have been "unexpectedly" exploding for years.

[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fails more often than it succeeds? That's... not even close to accurate.

They've already had more than 50 successful missions this year.

Testing doesn't count as a failure, it counts as test data.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think exploding was part of the test. I don't think being investigated by the FAA in 2020 for failure to listen to warnings about unintended shockwave damage was part of their tests. I don't think losing an entire rocket to a booster explosion last year was part of the test.

I think their tests are throwing things at the stainless steel wall and hoping it sticks.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Cry harder. SpaceX is single handedly saving the US space industry

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, we've got ongoing mars missions and revived transport of facilities even to the moon. Right? We have, right?

Hey, how did the dearMoon mission turn out? We kind of stopped hearing about that, huh.

I tell you what, you're absolutely right that he helped industry. Not any of the people who work in the industry, mind you.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This is dumb. SpaceX is launching over a hundred times per year. PER YEAR. Dear Moon was always a long term goal for anyone in the science community they understood it will never happen before 2030. The large launch quantity has helped reduce launch costs and has enabled small sat launches aka cubesats. Universities can now launch things to space because the launch costs are so low. So your statement that it hasn't helped anyone is patently false. You just have a raging boner against SpaceX, but you are incredibly uninformed. You can either continue in your delusion or see that SpaceX is actually good for the industry, universities, knowledge, and technology over all. That is all. Have a good life, or continue being a miserable hater. Whatever

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A long term goal set for launch in 2018 and 2020 and 2022 and 2023 and...

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Telling how you only focus on the few experimental failures vs the hundreds of successes. Just admit you're a hater based not on logic but just hate. You have no other argument. Loser