Getting off the pad is not a success, it should be a given.
This is supposed to be a human rated vehicle.
Where is the launch escape system? Cause they don’t have one.
And launching a brand new rocket and having it reach orbit the first time is not an oddity. SLS did it first try, the Arian family from ULA has been doing it for 5 versions of the rocket.
Building a billion dollar rocket and only being happy if it manages to get off the ground, only shows a severe lack of understanding of how engineering should work.
You know what would have given way more valuable flight data? A successful launch to orbit.
You know what would have given plenty of data without wasting tons of money and an entire launch facility? Test vehicles with smaller numbers of engines.
Oh, and a flame diverter that was a known basic requirement for large rockets over 50 years ago.
Starship’s launch was a failure. If SLS had blown up, heads at NASA would have rolled. But because Elon is some rich tech bro, he gets a pass to waste a billion of our tax dollars to make a fancy firework, that didn’t even self destruct right.
Maybe if someone at spaceX would explain how mass to orbit worked, they would have a better design for a rocket, but their current design is brain dead, and is never going to be rated for human flight.
If your willing to spend the money, testing things in practice can be much quicker than planning everything out. They admitted that they didn’t expect it to reach orbit and that anything beyond the launchpad would be a success. I suspect that Elon pressured them to launch too early though.
The SLS is built using tried and tested technology, so it should have (and did) work, but due to (effectively) corruption it’s stupidly expensive per launch.
The falcon 9 was ‘impossible’ to re-use untill they did it. It’s now revolutionised the launch business. If they can do that again by doing the ‘impossible’ then it will have been worth it.
I do kinda agree with you on the lack of an escape system though, but if they can prove reliability on unmanned missions then it could work.
Yeah, making it reliable enough not to need an escape system is the goal. One of the original concepts was that in a stage 1 failure outside black zones (also, Starship on paper does a great job minimizing the black zones due to re-entry design), stage 2 will light up and go for a powered landing. A stage “explosion” is usually very energetic but more burny-energetic than explosive-energetic, because the fuel can’t efficiently mix, which should be within the tolerances of the upper stage.
Planes don’t need escape systems, and hopefully Starship can get into at least 5 nines of reliability, preferably more. It’s never going to be entirely safe (planes have an accident rate around 1 per million flights, not many of which are fatal), but there’s no reason to think that we couldn’t get to that safety level in time.
Getting off the pad is not a success, it should be a given.
This is supposed to be a human rated vehicle.
Where is the launch escape system? Cause they don’t have one.
And launching a brand new rocket and having it reach orbit the first time is not an oddity. SLS did it first try, the Arian family from ULA has been doing it for 5 versions of the rocket.
Building a billion dollar rocket and only being happy if it manages to get off the ground, only shows a severe lack of understanding of how engineering should work.
You know what would have given way more valuable flight data? A successful launch to orbit.
You know what would have given plenty of data without wasting tons of money and an entire launch facility? Test vehicles with smaller numbers of engines.
Oh, and a flame diverter that was a known basic requirement for large rockets over 50 years ago.
Starship’s launch was a failure. If SLS had blown up, heads at NASA would have rolled. But because Elon is some rich tech bro, he gets a pass to waste a billion of our tax dollars to make a fancy firework, that didn’t even self destruct right.
Maybe if someone at spaceX would explain how mass to orbit worked, they would have a better design for a rocket, but their current design is brain dead, and is never going to be rated for human flight.
If your willing to spend the money, testing things in practice can be much quicker than planning everything out. They admitted that they didn’t expect it to reach orbit and that anything beyond the launchpad would be a success. I suspect that Elon pressured them to launch too early though.
The SLS is built using tried and tested technology, so it should have (and did) work, but due to (effectively) corruption it’s stupidly expensive per launch.
The falcon 9 was ‘impossible’ to re-use untill they did it. It’s now revolutionised the launch business. If they can do that again by doing the ‘impossible’ then it will have been worth it.
I do kinda agree with you on the lack of an escape system though, but if they can prove reliability on unmanned missions then it could work.
Yeah, making it reliable enough not to need an escape system is the goal. One of the original concepts was that in a stage 1 failure outside black zones (also, Starship on paper does a great job minimizing the black zones due to re-entry design), stage 2 will light up and go for a powered landing. A stage “explosion” is usually very energetic but more burny-energetic than explosive-energetic, because the fuel can’t efficiently mix, which should be within the tolerances of the upper stage.
Planes don’t need escape systems, and hopefully Starship can get into at least 5 nines of reliability, preferably more. It’s never going to be entirely safe (planes have an accident rate around 1 per million flights, not many of which are fatal), but there’s no reason to think that we couldn’t get to that safety level in time.
I sure wouldn’t get on a rocket that Elron said was so safe it didn’t need an escape system.
I certainly wouldn’t take his word for it either. Thousands of flights with a proven record would be my bar.
Ugh. Pass.