News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What are tou talking about?
Falcon 9 is fine.
Starship & Booster are continuously improving. When you see that a starship blew up, what's probably conveniently left off from the headlines you read is its a major revision. New engines, longer, different flaps etc. The last one went up and down wonderfully. The next one launching is v3 and has the latest engines and hundreds of changes and will probably go boom and maybe even the one after that.
They're literally removing heat tiles from critical areas to see what happens.
In no way is SpaceX messing up here though.
Nobody has ever developed a rocket in the open like this before where stuff breaking is expected and normal.
Edit: Attaching image of their engines for example. That v3 is not a render. This is a brand new engine type (full-flow staged combustion fuel cycle), never flown before SpaceX built one and flew it. Russia built one in theory, but never flew it.
dude, please read up on the space race. we have designed rockets in the open before. they blew up far less frequently.
None of that was like what SpaceX is doing.
There were failures in the race and they were testing things, but failures weren't the expected outcomes and part of the planned development cycle. Like they still don't even know how to make a reusable heat shield which is fundamental to this working.
SpaceX has built a manufacturing line to churn these things out and is like we think this might work, let's try it in flight hardware. Oh okay that didnt work, let's try something else. Oh okay that did work now, but if we do this does it still work because if it does we can eek out 2% more performance. Oh shit now we have a brand new mark 2 engine. Does it sill work? Let's make it longer now with more fuel and new tanks!
Starships blowing up is part of how they are iterating. No one else has done it this way, or so publicly.
The government cant handle things like this because people like you look at it as a failure and shit gets shut down. If they IPO its also going to cause issues for the same reason.
Meanwhile SpaceX has designed, built, flew and landed two orbital boosters before anyone landed one. They fucking caught it in chopsticks.
And yet they still can't do shit we could do 60 years ago
Like deliver 100 tonnes to the moons surface in a single ship?
What do you think they're failing at so badly compared to 60 years ago.
When does it arrive? Something as spectacular as that they're probably launching twice a week.
Not as good as my rocket though, it's powered by Ai and does three laps around the moon powered by bandwidth lazers.
I'm tired and don't have the name of the specific parts in my head right now and don't feel like looking them up. Shit we used to be able to make that is essential to manned spaceflight, that since we decided to get rid of the space shuttle now no longer gets made by anyone. no company nor person has the expertise to simply follow the patents. That's what trade secrets are for. In short, the supply chain broke and it has not been fixed.
Well, if my google search is right, they've already done 15 crewed flights (there/back so 30) with the longest duration in the capsule being over 3 days, and there are people on the ISS, so whatever it is, isn't needed for any of that manned spaceflight which makes me think its just something that allows for an extended trip, and having a bigger ship, opens the possibilities of other solutions.
For example, they can just take a less complicated but larger CO2 scrubber and/or more oxygen instead of having to use a super complicated one with a material we maybe can't re-create due to space/weight constraints. They'll have 100 tonnes to work with. 1 tonne of oxygen would last a small crew for years. Also that 100 tonnes ~~might~~ probably be after life support systems if they're talking about delivering 100t to surface.
I'm tired as well, I'm going to head off to bed.
The pic reminds me of a youtuber who debunks SpaceX bullshit almost exclusively. I don't remember the specifics, but he claimed that the v3 seen here is basically a fantasy.
Seriously, do not trust Musk to build something that works reliably under high stress. Esp. do not entrust human beings to anything Musk builds.
Was it thunderf00t by any chance?
Not sure. A middle aged guy (judging from his voice and some hints, I don't think he's actually visible) from some English speaking country.