3 ms·
Yeah, though it's a little weird that two failures should happen in relatively short order. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. But they definitely wan
by jfengel 2y ago
Yeah, though it's a little weird that two failures should happen in relatively short order.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. But they definitely want to be alert, because a third time would suggest that something else is going on. Perhaps a slip in manufacturing standards.
I wouldn't get too worked up, given that 23 launches is utterly unprecedented. Still, it's odd.
- throwaway48540 2y agoIs it really weird that two very overworked boosters fail after they both get overworked around the same time? The only odd thing is that they have multiple very overworked boosters.
- pieix 2y agoThe first failure wasn’t an overworked booster, it was a second stage which are always new off of the factory floor as they aren’t recovered.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoThe two failures aren’t related though if I’m not mistaken. This is an issue on a first stage on landing while the other was an issue on a second stage engine. I think it’s just a weird coincidence. But they’re also launching so often that it was bound to happen. I think they also had some 200+ consecutive successful landings which is wildly impressive.