you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

That's a glorious boom

But that's why they do testing, it's cheaper to boom on testbed than on a launch pad or in the air

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    But the idea behind doing things with the risk of them going boom is to learn things. I'm not sure they're learning what they need if they're going from testing Starship in launches to going back to static firing. If the idea is to rework the engines for Starship, I have to wonder if that's a fundamental enough step to put the entire project back to pretty much square one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Could you possibly whitewash this any harder?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don't think that means whet you think it means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Agreed. "Spin" would be the better word.

    It's another embarrassment added to a long list of embarrassments at this point. SpaceX has utterly failed to deliver on its contracts and at some point people need to recognize that the private sector does not always do it better. Especially when the company is run by a conman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What do you think whitewash means?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments