4 ms·

This is not a total success. Partial success OK. Calling it a huge success feels super weird for me, but I am not American so maybe this is a cultural thing.

friend_and_foe 4y ago
A private company just launched the largest rocket ever built. It was a test. Tests fail, but failed tests aren't failures, theyre learning opportunities. SpaceX had several of these types of failures when testing and iterating on falcon 9. It now sends people to the ISS. There is a PR battle going on with this, there always have been but in particular, Elon is associated very publicly with this company and he's no longer a darling due to the Twitter fiasco. SpaceX has to remind people quite strongly that these are tests, failure is a part of the process, and there will be a big push by his enemies to make this out to be some catastrophic failure because some people want to make him look bad. Its a failure, but it's a testing failure, so its a success. If the entire thing had exploded on the pad I'd agree with you, but it didn't, it made it through several of it's test objectives and was well worth it for the data alone.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Again, not complete failure, but partial success. No matter how you spin it they did not achieve 100% of the objectives. And yes the media honeymoon with Elon Musk is clearly over, and I think this is for the better (including for his own sanity)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - splistud 4y ago
    [dead]
  - gpm 4y ago
    They did achieve 100% of the objectives they did not define to be bonus objectives though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI @ 9:38 "We will consider any data inform and improve future builds of starship as a success. From a milestone our main goal is to clear the pad. Every milestone beyond that is a bonus." They may not have defined the test as aggressively as you would have liked them to, but it's their test, they get to choose what they're testing.
- kortex 4y ago
  > failed tests aren't failures, theyre learning opportunities I could frame this. Task failed successfully. Maybe folks need more experience in hard science (I'm a former bench chemist), but the only way a test can truly fail, is if someone or something is harmed, or you don't collect good data. Blowing up rockets is arguably better than successful missions (provided you get telemetry), cause you found an edge of the envelope.
- nickpp 4y ago
  > Its a failure, but it's a testing failure, so its a success. Cultural misunderstanding then. Only in USA failure is seen as learning opportunity. Most other countries punish you severely for failure, hard enough to discourage you from trying ever again. This is why SpaceX could only happen in the USA. And why other countries are left behind while Americans are flying to Mars.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
The topic has been beaten to death in the comments, but it comes down to sematics around success and goals. They didn't meet every goal hopeped for, but how much or which constitutes sucess? This will be in the eye of the beholder. SpaceX said they would consider it sucessfull if it leaves the launch pad/site. I might call it a failure because it didn't land a human on the moon, and it doesn't matter if that was not the expectation or intent of SpaceX today. It is ultimately subjective. You might be happy with your life, but I might call it a falure. Is one of us right, both?
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  Nah, it was programmed for stages separation and some flight before reentry, and also the return maneuver for the booster stage. The separation malfunctioned, that was not planned, this is not subjective. What is subjective is defining if this is a 25%, 50% or 90% success (can't be 100%).
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Successful test, not a successful launch. Different metrics.
    - baq 4y ago
      Success is defined by meeting objectives. Primary objective was to not blow up the vehicle on the pad. Great success here. Secondary objectives indeed aren’t met. I think everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially. Any solutions are expensive and time consuming.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially I'm seeing a lot of speculation and little engineering on this. Is there a good post hoc take on why it's a big problem? Counterfactuals: it wasn't a production pad. It was designed to be expendable. That's why you don't put a bunch of expensive kit like deluge equipment on and around it; there's a meaningful chance you never clear the tower.

friend_and_foe 4y ago

A private company just launched the largest rocket ever built. It was a test. Tests fail, but failed tests aren't failures, theyre learning opportunities. SpaceX had several of these types of failures when testing and iterating on falcon 9. It now sends people to the ISS. There is a PR battle going on with this, there always have been but in particular, Elon is associated very publicly with this company and he's no longer a darling due to the Twitter fiasco. SpaceX has to remind people quite strongly that these are tests, failure is a part of the process, and there will be a big push by his enemies to make this out to be some catastrophic failure because some people want to make him look bad. Its a failure, but it's a testing failure, so its a success. If the entire thing had exploded on the pad I'd agree with you, but it didn't, it made it through several of it's test objectives and was well worth it for the data alone.

stephc_int13 4y ago
Again, not complete failure, but partial success. No matter how you spin it they did not achieve 100% of the objectives. And yes the media honeymoon with Elon Musk is clearly over, and I think this is for the better (including for his own sanity)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- splistud 4y ago
  [dead]
- gpm 4y ago
  They did achieve 100% of the objectives they did not define to be bonus objectives though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI @ 9:38 "We will consider any data inform and improve future builds of starship as a success. From a milestone our main goal is to clear the pad. Every milestone beyond that is a bonus." They may not have defined the test as aggressively as you would have liked them to, but it's their test, they get to choose what they're testing.
kortex 4y ago
> failed tests aren't failures, theyre learning opportunities I could frame this. Task failed successfully. Maybe folks need more experience in hard science (I'm a former bench chemist), but the only way a test can truly fail, is if someone or something is harmed, or you don't collect good data. Blowing up rockets is arguably better than successful missions (provided you get telemetry), cause you found an edge of the envelope.
nickpp 4y ago
> Its a failure, but it's a testing failure, so its a success. Cultural misunderstanding then. Only in USA failure is seen as learning opportunity. Most other countries punish you severely for failure, hard enough to discourage you from trying ever again. This is why SpaceX could only happen in the USA. And why other countries are left behind while Americans are flying to Mars.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

The topic has been beaten to death in the comments, but it comes down to sematics around success and goals. They didn't meet every goal hopeped for, but how much or which constitutes sucess? This will be in the eye of the beholder. SpaceX said they would consider it sucessfull if it leaves the launch pad/site. I might call it a failure because it didn't land a human on the moon, and it doesn't matter if that was not the expectation or intent of SpaceX today. It is ultimately subjective. You might be happy with your life, but I might call it a falure. Is one of us right, both?

stephc_int13 4y ago
Nah, it was programmed for stages separation and some flight before reentry, and also the return maneuver for the booster stage. The separation malfunctioned, that was not planned, this is not subjective. What is subjective is defining if this is a 25%, 50% or 90% success (can't be 100%).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Successful test, not a successful launch. Different metrics.
  - baq 4y ago
    Success is defined by meeting objectives. Primary objective was to not blow up the vehicle on the pad. Great success here. Secondary objectives indeed aren’t met. I think everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially. Any solutions are expensive and time consuming.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially I'm seeing a lot of speculation and little engineering on this. Is there a good post hoc take on why it's a big problem? Counterfactuals: it wasn't a production pad. It was designed to be expendable. That's why you don't put a bunch of expensive kit like deluge equipment on and around it; there's a meaningful chance you never clear the tower.