3 ms·

Not out of the ordinary at all. About two years ago, space.com published a summary of "Every SpaceX Starship explosion"[1] so far. There were quite a few even t

Not out of the ordinary at all. About two years ago, space.com published a summary of "Every SpaceX Starship explosion"[1] so far. There were quite a few even then. But it's not really out of the ordinary for the media to talk about them either; even without politics, rocket explosions get views. 1: https://www.space.com/every-spacex-starship-explosion-lessons-learned https://www.space.com/every-spacex-starship-explosion-lesson...

kemotep 2y ago
Then where does the Falcon 9 have only 4 total failures over the course of nearly 15 years figure come from?[0] Last two previous launches were failures of the Raptor engine. Falcon 9 never seemed to have this many issues did it? [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
- leereeves 2y ago
  That's ignoring the failures of the Falcon 1 rocket that used the same Merlin engine. Once they got the bugs worked out the Falcon rockets have been very reliable.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Falcon 9 was a more conservative rocket. The big new thing was recovering the booster, and there were lots of failures for that. The other big difference is that Falcon 9 uses the Merlin engine, which was developed on Falcon 1 rocket which had multiple failures. Starship is trying something new, recovering the second stage that goes in orbit. Which means bigger rocket and more complicated second stage. They are also using new Raptor engines. The last two failures have been new version of Starship, and they either broke something or haven't been able to fix problem.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    Back in the day, falcon nine booster reusability would've been called a fine hack. It wasn't meant to do that. But, just barely, it could. Starship is the cybertruck of spaceships. It's what happens when you stop listening to the people who could pull off a fine hack.

kemotep 2y ago

Then where does the Falcon 9 have only 4 total failures over the course of nearly 15 years figure come from?[0] Last two previous launches were failures of the Raptor engine. Falcon 9 never seemed to have this many issues did it? [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...

leereeves 2y ago
That's ignoring the failures of the Falcon 1 rocket that used the same Merlin engine. Once they got the bugs worked out the Falcon rockets have been very reliable.
ianburrell 2y ago
Falcon 9 was a more conservative rocket. The big new thing was recovering the booster, and there were lots of failures for that. The other big difference is that Falcon 9 uses the Merlin engine, which was developed on Falcon 1 rocket which had multiple failures. Starship is trying something new, recovering the second stage that goes in orbit. Which means bigger rocket and more complicated second stage. They are also using new Raptor engines. The last two failures have been new version of Starship, and they either broke something or haven't been able to fix problem.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Back in the day, falcon nine booster reusability would've been called a fine hack. It wasn't meant to do that. But, just barely, it could. Starship is the cybertruck of spaceships. It's what happens when you stop listening to the people who could pull off a fine hack.