3 ms·
>> Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures? > Well that's just a str
by Aaron2222 2y ago
>> Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures?
> Well that's just a straight up lie.
I'm guessing they're confusing the expected, catastrophic explosive "failures" on experimental Starship prototypes with payload-carrying F9/FH flights.
- gamblor956 2y agoYes, when you redefine failure to mean success, everything can be a success. That kid who got 1% on his test? He passed, if you redefine the threshold for passing to mean something that everyone else would consider a failure.
- dotnet00 2y agoWell that's one way to tell the world you've never built anything new.
- Aaron2222 2y agoLaunching a prototype rocket with the expectation that it will probably blow up and then having it blow up isn't a failure, especially when the goal is to see what happens.
- gridspy 2y agoEspecially when each rocket successfully makes it further into the test, beyond the point where the previous iteration failed.
- kortilla 2y agoI want to short anything you’re involved in
- boxed 2y agoYou said "unexpected catastrophic explosive failures". But 1. They were not unexpected. They very very clearly communicated months ahead. 2. "Catastrophic" is a bit much too, as they were indeed expected and planned for. In fact, the biggest failure in the Starship development was that the rocket did NOT explode fast enough once. 3. "Failures". Well.. no. These are prototypes intended to learn from. Experiments if you will. A scientist that never has a negative result is a fraud. Same here.