SpaceX

1939 readers

8 users here now

A community for discussing SpaceX.

Related space communities:

Memes:

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

IFT4 analysis by Scott Manley (youtu.be)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Piped Link: https://piped.video/watch?v=8m0TY6i1Kuo?si=LEfbayCSWeTgP3bZ

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There's no way he didn't completely lose his shit in those final seconds when Starship successfully relit. His neighbours must have heard a dictionaries worth of new swear words.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Since he said "Holy sh*tballs, it's moving!" during IFT-1, I suspect you may be correct. Must be interesting to be Scott Manley's neighbour...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Such an interesting flight.

Everyone thought it was going to explode at somepoint. Even the enthusiastic and hopeful hosts were talking about how long it's going to last. Then it made it.

Would love to see some photos of it.

But they aren't reviving anything are they?

[+] [email protected] -21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Engineering issue ignored by executives? Where have I seen this before …

“ Space Shuttle Challenger repeatedly launched with damaged O-rings, but it never gave up!”

“Space Shuttle Columbia is repeatedly loses cooling panels, but it never gave up!”

Until they did give up

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Engineer 1 "How do we know how strong this part needs to be?"

Engineer 2 "Um. Shall we test it?"

Engineer 1 "Yea okay." ... "Oh hey we learnt something."

Some random guy watching "Look at the fucking idiots over there. Testing things. Chumps"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What exactly is your point here?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think it doesn't need rocket science to understand the point trying to be made.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

The way I understand is that they're confused about the difference between test flights and operational missions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

The problem is that their point is nonsense.

This isn't a long-standing problem being persistently ignored, this is a test flight designed specifically to discover such problems. They were so keen to test how the system handled problems like this that they deliberately damaged the heat shield before the flight (somewhere other than where this particular problem occurred).

The implication that this partial failure of the heat shield is damning evidence of negligence is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I'd much rather they blow up an empty mockup than a manned shuttle, but yeah, ignoring known issues isn't great.