4 ms·

> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper The problem with that idea is that you won'

> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, which can take months (or years if you're Blue Origin). Also, your insurance rates tend to go up a lot when your rockets blow up regularly, which tends to push customers away. In practice it doesn't work. Notes: Astra said they were going to pursue this strategy. It was not well received by potential customers and they basically had to walk it back.

schmidtleonard 2y ago
Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader. What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure. If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage. Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead. So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed. [1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.
ReptileMan 2y ago
>The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements. Good luck with that. Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.

schmidtleonard 2y ago

Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.

nordsieck 2y ago
> Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader. What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure. If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage. Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead. So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed. [1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.

ReptileMan 2y ago

>The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.

nordsieck 2y ago
> I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements. Good luck with that. Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.