Well, over $1 billion in NASA funding has blown up, and the company announces it with a press release that sounds like Johnny 5 wrote it. And the saddest part is, it literally is like they took the crappiest heavy lift rocket ever designed, and decided to make it even crappier. There is not even enough hands available for the facepalm I wanted to give myself when I heard this thing used 33 rockets. It literally was like they designed it to fail from the very beginning.
Are you referring to this SpaceX? ... The valuation of Tesla chief Elon Musk's private space exploration firm, SpaceX, has topped a $100 billion valuation based on a private agreement between new and existing investors, CNBC reported Friday, representing a massive spike in value bested overall by only one other private company in the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonath...rivate-investor-transactions/?sh=1d6dde1b4416
Yep. This is not even really all that "original", and in many ways is a copy of a failed design from over 5 decades ago. And it was a failure for largely the same reasons. How much money a company is worth is largely meaningless. It was not all that long ago that Enron, Solyndra, and Theranos were multi-billion dollar companies. Where did the leadership of most of those end up when it was all said and done?
You didn't provide any links to the OP. But SpaceX is a pvt company. It gets funding from pvt sources. Did NASA commit $1B to this project? So far, the answer is no. It's not clear the point of the OP, except a space mission failed. It does happen.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...nd-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0 No, the answer is unquestionably "yes". As outlined above in a NASA press release. Care to try again? And it is an easily predicted failure. I would almost say it was designed to fail.
Try again? That's the 1st link you provided. So, it's a 1st try. And per the company, just achieving lift off is considered a success. ... The cause of the explosion and the failure of the separation was not immediately known. The rocket's blast-off already meant the test was considered by the company to be a success. "As if the flight test was not exciting enough, Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation," SpaceX tweeted shortly after the test. "Teams will continue to review data and work toward our next flight test." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/spacexs-starship-rocket-blasts-first-test-flight-rcna79988
Uh-huh. That is called "spin". But I tend to go with history. And history predicts this will always end in failure. Also, I notice no retraction that you were wrong about the over billion dollars in funding. What, do you honestly think I was just making things up about this? Or past failures of similar designs?
Yes. since you provided no information on it. And guess what, I doubt the whole $1B was used on this 1 launch alone. So, are you one of those that thinks putting man on moon was a failure or a fraud? Since they always end in failure, per your comment.
Oh yes, only an announcement from NASA. "no information". Where in the hell did I ever say that? However, the rocket we used for that is nothing like what SpaceX is trying. We used the Saturn V, they are trying a recreation of a previous failed design.
Not a single announcement from NASA or anyone in the OP. Not even a link to a single thing. All your opinion.
Oh boy, here we go yet again. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...nd-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0 Notice who made that release. NASA.GOV. But yes, "not a single announcement from NASA" indeed. Is the above "my opinion", or an official announcement from NASA itself? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/science/spacex-moon-nasa.html https://spacenews.com/fiscal-year-2023-omnibus-bill-provides-25-4-billion-for-nasa/ https://www.statista.com/chart/29409/nasa-contractors-with-the-highest-awards-volume-in-fy-2022/ Oh yes, entirely "my opinion", and I am simply making it all up
Yes, the OP was all your opinion. None of the other stuff was in the OP. So NASA donated some money. Why didn't you include that in your OP? SpaceX called the launch a success. See the link I gave. The $1B NASA donated went to a good test and will help with fixing any issues that come up in the future. Success most always comes from the result of early failures. If at 1st you don't succeed...
This isn't a rational analysis. There was no claim that this launch was more than a test. The price quote you gave was NOT for this test. In fact, SpaceX stated that this test would be considered successful if it cleared the gantry. Rocket tests ALWAYS include major explosions. SpaceX has had first states that have launched and returned to be used more than a dozen times. That technology also included early explosions
The F are you going on aboot? Musk’s company screwed the pooch. Are you bereft of an ability to google stuff w/o shroom providing links for this? This ain’t current affairs sub-forum rules brah.
It's the job of the OP to set the tone of the thread. Not for every single reader to try and figure out what the purpose of the OP is about. Now do you have a post on the thread topic or do you just want to continue with ad hom attacks and going off topic? SpaceX, according to my link in this thread, considered the launch a success.
I take it you've never run a scientific or engineering test. Nothing works perfect the 1st time. Perhaps it takes several dozen times to have complete success.
This isn't a reasonable response. If they want to execute a test that they believe isn't likely to reach orbit, why would you whine at them them for doing that?
to everything turn, turn, turn . . . And a time to every purpose under Heaven spin it anyway you like, there is no reason for rocket failures like this these days unlike the climate, our current abilities in modelling rockets is likely pretty much 100%
SpaceX and others do have good records for rockets that they have designed and tested over the years. But, those who are designing and building rockets that have far greater power, capacity, novel capability, new materials, different fuels, etc., etc. is a different issue entirely. Rockets are incredibly complex machines that operate in seriously difficult environments.
seriously, what is your beef with this thread? there's nothing inaccurate in it and it is an incredibly disastrous failure. and you assert that because SpaceX releases some spin on it that you agree it was a success? rapid, unscheduled disassembly.... give me a break.
I wonder if there are better methods of propulsion that are being developed which would be a better destination for development rather than relearning an old design. Someone should devise a design and take it before Congress, who have made it the law that NASA needs to take us to the Moon.
