4 ms·

This is not about laughing or not. This is about if it was objectfully a successful test or not. If you want to take the stance that any test is a success that

by x86x87 3y ago

This is not about laughing or not. This is about if it was objectfully a successful test or not. If you want to take the stance that any test is a success that's fine but remember this depends on what your definition of success is. The other thing to keep in mind is that past success is not always a good predictor of future success.

ceejayoz 3y ago
There's no "objectively" here. It's all feels. Objectively, this test successfully demonstrated the water deluge system, an intact launch pad, all engines on the first and second stage igniting and staying lit, stage separation, hot staging, and a long burn nearly to orbital speeds. That's a pretty good list of ticked boxes. They very openly stated they didn't necessarily expect it to get all the way to splashdown. You can argue that's PR, but their history has objectively been one of incremental progress (again, see Falcon 9's landing attempts) via repeat testing. Personally, I'd consider a mission failed if a) it carries a real payload it's supposed to get somewhere and doesn't, b) it breaks due to a previously known issue, or c) it breaks sooner than the last test. I'd also consider it entirely fine to have "reach goals" in a test. They went longer, faster, further, and more successfully than the first test. I'm happy calling that a win, and I suspect SpaceX will as well.
- x86x87 3y ago
  Objectively, for any test to be judged a failure or success you have to define the outcome you want upfront. If you do not any amount of mental gymnastics you you after the test does not matter. It does not matter you call it a win if you are not respecting other opinions that this is a fail.
  - sbuttgereit 3y ago
    SpaceX very clearly stated just prior to launch that their goal was for the rocket to get through hot-staging because the hot-staging process they had large unknowns. Sure their flight plan went well beyond that, but I don't see how having an aspirational plan that goes beyond "we'll blow it up after hot-staging", also likely required for the FAA, defeats the "successful" qualification of the test.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Here's NASA the day before launch: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/what-nasa-wants-to-see-from-spacexs-second-starship-test-flight/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/what-nasa-wants-to-see... > "Tomorrow is a test and we’re going to learn a lot either way," Lisa Watson-Morgan, who manages NASA's Human Landing System program, told Ars in an interview this week. "We’d love to see it go off perfectly, but frankly, if it doesn’t, it’s still going to be a great learning event, and it still will give us progression on the schedule for the different flight tests, and then we’ll know the areas we need to more deeply penetrate.”
- jwells89 3y ago
  And on top of all of that, there’s a laundry list of firsts that are being achieved here: first flightworthy full-flow staged combustion engine, largest vehicle launched, largest number of engines working in concert, first vehicle built with full reusability factored into its design from day one. Every launch where more is nominal for longer is new territory and an achievement.
grecy 3y ago
SpaceX and NASA were extremely clear what the definition of success for this flight was. It was a resounding success.

by x86x87 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

There's no "objectively" here. It's all feels. Objectively, this test successfully demonstrated the water deluge system, an intact launch pad, all engines on the first and second stage igniting and staying lit, stage separation, hot staging, and a long burn nearly to orbital speeds. That's a pretty good list of ticked boxes. They very openly stated they didn't necessarily expect it to get all the way to splashdown. You can argue that's PR, but their history has objectively been one of incremental progress (again, see Falcon 9's landing attempts) via repeat testing. Personally, I'd consider a mission failed if a) it carries a real payload it's supposed to get somewhere and doesn't, b) it breaks due to a previously known issue, or c) it breaks sooner than the last test. I'd also consider it entirely fine to have "reach goals" in a test. They went longer, faster, further, and more successfully than the first test. I'm happy calling that a win, and I suspect SpaceX will as well.

x86x87 3y ago
Objectively, for any test to be judged a failure or success you have to define the outcome you want upfront. If you do not any amount of mental gymnastics you you after the test does not matter. It does not matter you call it a win if you are not respecting other opinions that this is a fail.
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  SpaceX very clearly stated just prior to launch that their goal was for the rocket to get through hot-staging because the hot-staging process they had large unknowns. Sure their flight plan went well beyond that, but I don't see how having an aspirational plan that goes beyond "we'll blow it up after hot-staging", also likely required for the FAA, defeats the "successful" qualification of the test.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Here's NASA the day before launch: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/what-nasa-wants-to-see-from-spacexs-second-starship-test-flight/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/what-nasa-wants-to-see... > "Tomorrow is a test and we’re going to learn a lot either way," Lisa Watson-Morgan, who manages NASA's Human Landing System program, told Ars in an interview this week. "We’d love to see it go off perfectly, but frankly, if it doesn’t, it’s still going to be a great learning event, and it still will give us progression on the schedule for the different flight tests, and then we’ll know the areas we need to more deeply penetrate.”
jwells89 3y ago
And on top of all of that, there’s a laundry list of firsts that are being achieved here: first flightworthy full-flow staged combustion engine, largest vehicle launched, largest number of engines working in concert, first vehicle built with full reusability factored into its design from day one. Every launch where more is nominal for longer is new territory and an achievement.

grecy 3y ago

SpaceX and NASA were extremely clear what the definition of success for this flight was. It was a resounding success.