• Zetta@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    "Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven. "

    Arguing this point makes you seem either uneducated on the launch or just someone shitting on SpaceX because musk. If you were actually familiar with the launch profile you would know starship nearly reached orbital velocities but did not on purpose, so it could reenter the atmosphere and test the heat shield.

    So you’d be technically right in your statement, however knowing the full details of the situation makes your take stupid.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      And it was a safety measure in case they lost control that would ensure it would burn itself up and not become space junk. This guy is a nut job lmao. SpaceX is badass!

      setting all politics and social issues from the CEO aside.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Right but I think that was their point though no? That, for safety reasons, they didn’t make it to orbit. Seems like a pretty cut and dry “no” they didn’t make it to orbit just like that person said. And the reason was that they didn’t know if it would make it. Which kind of supports their point.

        I’m not going to claim to know enough either way (besides Elon Musk being an idiot), but they don’t seem wrong there.

        It seems like you guys are mad that it didn’t make orbit and get defensive when people point it out.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Because the longer a launch goes the easier it is. Basically there are critical phases of flight and there’s the actual continuous operation of the rocket all the time. Things like clearing the tower, max q, stage separation, engine re-lighting are all insanely complex operations, but once all that’s done and all you need to do is burn the engines for longer it’s pretty easy to just burn more rocket fuel on a flight that has been working the whole time. its something that is much less risky to the mission going on. Things can go wrong, but the chance is much higher during one of those complex things.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      While completely empty.

      An empty vehicle does not have the same performance as one with cargo.

      Ignoring this point make you seem either uneducated on space flight or just someone blinded by the tech bro philosophy of “trust me bro it’ll work next time”

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        ¯_(ツ)_/¯ while starship performance is ass compared to what they want they could still have easily put cargo onboard, you are talking about the most successful and likely profitable spaceflight company in history here you know?

        SpaceX gets a lot of credit from space fans because they have proved the haters wrong time and time again, people just like you were saying the exact same garbage about falcon 9 and reusing the booster, now that SpaceX succeeded at that they practically own earth’s entire launch industry and will revolutionize it again with starship.

        I’m sure we will get lots of “failures” (expected test vehicle losses) along the way for you to doom on, but at the end of the day SpaceX will be the winners like they always are at the end of the day.