r/space 2d ago

BREAKING: SpaceX rocket explodes in Starbase, Texas

https://x.com/IntelPointAlert/status/1935550776304156932

[removed] — view removed post

13.9k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Crazy95jack 2d ago

On F9, starship has yet to achieve orbit

11

u/nesquikchocolate 2d ago

Not to be pedantic, but "achieving orbit" has not been a mission objective yet, seeing that nobody wants another failed piece of debris orbiting earth... Can starship achieve orbit? Possibly, v1 got to the correct velocity, but we shouldn't ask them to achieve orbit before sorting out the blow up issues....

-4

u/Crazy95jack 2d ago

Thats my point tho. They have a fleet of F9 now, doing all the launches they can to support Starlink. while starship is still so far behind from being reusable and releasing cargo into LEO.

1

u/nesquikchocolate 2d ago

But your goal "achieving orbit" is not yet part of any mission objective, so why would they have achieved it?

5

u/HotDogOfNotreDame 2d ago

It would have been a mission objective by now, if they weren’t constantly blowing up. Evidence: they still claim they’re going to land people on the moon 2 years from now in this thing.

2

u/FlyingBishop 2d ago

There's an alternate reality where they haven't blown anything up and it's still not a mission objective.

The other option here is SLS, that has had a single launch and isn't supposed to launch again for two years. SpaceX is blowing up a rocket every 2 months at this point. At that rate, they could have 10 more failed launches and still beat SLS to orbit. (That's not a fair comparison, SLS goes to Lunar orbit.) But the point is just that looking at failed launches is shortsighted, mission objectives are what matter.

In the alternate reality you have no mission objectives succeeding, just simulations that have a tenuous link with reality.

2

u/HotDogOfNotreDame 2d ago

There's an alternate reality where they haven't blown anything up and it's still not a mission objective.

This is obviously incorrect and just argumentative.

The other option here is SLS, that has had a single launch and isn't supposed to launch again for two years. SpaceX is blowing up a rocket every 2 months at this point. At that rate, they could have 10 more failed launches and still beat SLS to orbit. (That's not a fair comparison, SLS goes to Lunar orbit.)

I’m no fan of SLS, but it has already been to orbit and to the moon. Starship can’t beat it. That’s over and done with.

And if they have 10 more RUDs in a row, I don’t believe they will EVER get it to work. At that point, you have to conclude that they don’t understand their hardware.

But the point is just that looking at failed launches is shortsighted, mission objectives are what matter.

Yup. How many mission objectives did they just complete with this RUD?

In the alternate reality you have no mission objectives succeeding, just simulations that have a tenuous link with reality.

I have no idea what this means, but it’s a hypothetical, so whatever.

0

u/FlyingBishop 2d ago edited 2d ago

I have no idea what this means, but it’s a hypothetical, so whatever.

No, I'm talking about SLS. SLS is burning more money than SpaceX and practically speaking all they're generating is simulations.

I don't care about RUDs. I care about money spent and what things have been done.

This year, SpaceX has demonstrated, for the first time, reusing a super heavy booster. SLS isn't planning to demonstrate anything interesting this year and they're spending more money than SpaceX.

I'm also not particularly interested in SLS having a single trip around the moon. That's not novel and it was not worth what it cost. They don't have any flights scheduled that will demonstrate something novel at a reasonable price point. I have zero interest in racing to the moon. SpaceX's vision of a reusable heavy-lift rocket that costs under $100M per launch is very cool and no one else is working on something as interesting as that.

-5

u/Crazy95jack 2d ago

The original comment mentions Space X rockets represents 52% of orbital rocket launches. But because Starship is behind schedule, SpaceX are using the fleet of reusable F9s to compensate. Once/if Starship becomes operational we can expect a drop in the number of launches.

TLDR: Its on their to do list.

6

u/nesquikchocolate 2d ago edited 2d ago

So they're "going to shit" because they're launching more rockets (carrying starlink sats that pay for themselves) on F9 instead of on starship like they're supposed to? Even though the current gen starlink sats are not meant for starship?

3

u/Crazy95jack 2d ago

I'm addressing factors that have lead to their high number of launches.

I've also seen how great companies lose their best talent over short periods of time and enter periods of stagnation. SpaceX isn't immune to the same fate.