3 ms·

There was some small chance of the rocket blowing up on the launchpad that was accounted for. There was a near 100% chance of the launchpad not being able to ha

There was some small chance of the rocket blowing up on the launchpad that was accounted for. There was a near 100% chance of the launchpad not being able to handle the launch, sending chunks of it and the dirt underneath everywhere, just to hit a launch date of 4/20 that was not accounted for. He says he can clear out the existing launchpad and install the working one in a matter of weeks. Then the question is why he didn't do that prior to this launch. We can only speculate that if it hadn't caused a mess, he'd be making 4/20 jokes, and that is why.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
> There was a near 100% chance of the launchpad not being able to handle the launch, sending chunks of it and the dirt underneath everywhere It was expected to erode slightly, just as it did with the 30 engine fire, not to fail destructively. > just to hit a launch date of 4/20 that was not accounted for. The first launch attempt was 4/17, and it takes >48 hours to depress and refill. 4/20 was a coincidence. > He says he can clear out the existing launchpad and install the working one in a matter of weeks. Then the question is why he didn't do that prior to this launch. SpaceX is estimated to be spending $2M per day on Starship development. A 2 month delay is a big deal. And if a 2 month delay would have resulted in a successful test then the Flight Termination System problem wouldn't have been discovered.
bell-cot 4y ago
Pre-launch, I'd bet that the best-experts probability of a RUD on or near the pad was >5%. And the probability of massive pad damage starting a few fires was <95%. If you recall Probability 101, and do the Chance_of_X * Severity_of_X calculations - then the vast majority of the expected* fire damage, which the FAA effectively signed off on, was from the near-pad explosion scenario. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
ToValueFunfetti 4y ago
They scrubbed a launch on 4/17, so either the launch was delayed for a dumb joke, they ran a false flag launch attempt to hide that the real launch was scheduled based on a dumb joke in case of disaster, or they don't actually make decisions like that based on dumb jokes.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Musk said he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420 per share, and he bought Twitter at $54.20 per share. He has a habit of doing stupid things just so he can hit that number. The 4/17 launch date wasn't set until he got approval for launch just a few days prior. I wouldn't put it past him to have intended for a 4/20 launch when he applied for approval.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

> There was a near 100% chance of the launchpad not being able to handle the launch, sending chunks of it and the dirt underneath everywhere It was expected to erode slightly, just as it did with the 30 engine fire, not to fail destructively. > just to hit a launch date of 4/20 that was not accounted for. The first launch attempt was 4/17, and it takes >48 hours to depress and refill. 4/20 was a coincidence. > He says he can clear out the existing launchpad and install the working one in a matter of weeks. Then the question is why he didn't do that prior to this launch. SpaceX is estimated to be spending $2M per day on Starship development. A 2 month delay is a big deal. And if a 2 month delay would have resulted in a successful test then the Flight Termination System problem wouldn't have been discovered.

bell-cot 4y ago

Pre-launch, I'd bet that the best-experts probability of a RUD on or near the pad was >5%. And the probability of massive pad damage starting a few fires was <95%. If you recall Probability 101, and do the Chance_of_X * Severity_of_X calculations - then the vast majority of the expected* fire damage, which the FAA effectively signed off on, was from the near-pad explosion scenario. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

ToValueFunfetti 4y ago

They scrubbed a launch on 4/17, so either the launch was delayed for a dumb joke, they ran a false flag launch attempt to hide that the real launch was scheduled based on a dumb joke in case of disaster, or they don't actually make decisions like that based on dumb jokes.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
Musk said he had secured funding to take Tesla private at $420 per share, and he bought Twitter at $54.20 per share. He has a habit of doing stupid things just so he can hit that number. The 4/17 launch date wasn't set until he got approval for launch just a few days prior. I wouldn't put it past him to have intended for a 4/20 launch when he applied for approval.