3 ms·

In this case, though, a lot of this is because SpaceX didn't take some pretty basic precautions, and because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the

In this case, though, a lot of this is because SpaceX didn't take some pretty basic precautions, and because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the effects of the launch (they tore up their own pad, because they got the forces and effects involved way wrong—that's why they blasted chunks of concrete everywhere), and because they decided they just had to launch before getting a metal plate put in on the pad to mitigate some of this. I wanna say they also violated some of the rules around their flight plan, resulting in more damage and debris on the shore. This isn't "the cost of progress", this is misconduct.

remarkEon 3y ago
>because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the effects of the launch (they tore up their own pad, because they got the forces and effects involved way wrong—that's why they blasted chunks of concrete everywhere Is there an interview or a blog post or something that says this? My understanding (don't have a link or anything) was that outfitting the launch pad to be to the standard of 39A would've taken years, and getting flight data from the vehicle was more important than likely blowing up the hastily designed/built launch pad.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Basically any article you find searching "SpaceX Launch" right now that covers the damage to the pad (not just the very-early reports about the rocket blowing up) contains some or all of the info in that post. The reporter I heard talking about it (I think yesterday?) said that SpaceX had to file a variety of assessments of expected effects under various launch scenarios, and that the damage done by this successful launch was on par with what they'd estimated for the "fully-fueled rocket explodes on pad" outcome, and that they seem to have based their projections for a "gets off the pad successfully" scenario on results from a half-throttle test-fire and, I dunno, wishful thinking, it seems. I have not personally looked up those records to verify that, though.

remarkEon 3y ago

>because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the effects of the launch (they tore up their own pad, because they got the forces and effects involved way wrong—that's why they blasted chunks of concrete everywhere Is there an interview or a blog post or something that says this? My understanding (don't have a link or anything) was that outfitting the launch pad to be to the standard of 39A would've taken years, and getting flight data from the vehicle was more important than likely blowing up the hastily designed/built launch pad.

yamtaddle 3y ago
Basically any article you find searching "SpaceX Launch" right now that covers the damage to the pad (not just the very-early reports about the rocket blowing up) contains some or all of the info in that post. The reporter I heard talking about it (I think yesterday?) said that SpaceX had to file a variety of assessments of expected effects under various launch scenarios, and that the damage done by this successful launch was on par with what they'd estimated for the "fully-fueled rocket explodes on pad" outcome, and that they seem to have based their projections for a "gets off the pad successfully" scenario on results from a half-throttle test-fire and, I dunno, wishful thinking, it seems. I have not personally looked up those records to verify that, though.