Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

I definitely wouldn’t put any stock in Musk claiming there will be a starship launch next month. He has said that or similar things many times before when no launch is forthcoming. 

While true, at least this time the everything appears ready to go, unlike before when not even the launch pad/tower was complete. Depends how that full 33-Raptor static fire goes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Depends how that full 33-Raptor static fire goes...

Yeah...

I don't see how that cannot result in some damage to something that ends up needing repair.

(Can't make an omelet and all that)

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2023 at 5:38 PM, tater said:

So 172, with 138 booster reflights. In a few weeks, SpaceX will have more consecutive booster landings than Atlas V has flights (F9 passed Atlas V in flights partway through last year).

Who cares, nothing else flying in the west is even close?

Falcon 9 has definitely been successful, both technically and (as far as we can tell because SpaceX is a private company) commercially. However, why gild the lily? Pretending that the pad explosion doesn't count as a "failed launch" is pretty weak sauce.

Maybe if they hadn't lost the customer payload it could have been written off as "just a test", but with a fully payload-integrated rocket on the launch pad, and with the payload destroyed, it really should count as a failure.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RyanRising said:

I definitely wouldn’t put any stock in Musk claiming there will be a starship launch next month. He has said that or similar things many times before when no launch is forthcoming. 

Yeah, at this rate Starship will never catch up with New Glenn ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Falcon 9 has definitely been successful, both technically and (as far as we can tell because SpaceX is a private company) commercially. However, why gild the lily? Pretending that the pad explosion doesn't count as a "failed launch" is pretty weak sauce.

Maybe if they hadn't lost the customer payload it could have been written off as "just a test", but with a fully payload-integrated rocket on the launch pad, and with the payload destroyed, it really should count as a failure.

They’re still at more consecutive flights than anything flown by the US or Europe though.

that 172 is consecutive successes after Amos 6, which would have been launch 29. Total launches is 201 (202 with Amos?)—not counting FH.

But absolutely 2 failures.

Atlas V is 97/97. 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Falcon 9 has definitely been successful, both technically and (as far as we can tell because SpaceX is a private company) commercially. However, why gild the lily? Pretending that the pad explosion doesn't count as a "failed launch" is pretty weak sauce.

Maybe if they hadn't lost the customer payload it could have been written off as "just a test", but with a fully payload-integrated rocket on the launch pad, and with the payload destroyed, it really should count as a failure.

Agree, I say it count as an fail because it had the customers payload on it, if not I would not count it. On the other hand If it had been an starlink payload it would be interesting as its SpaceX own cargo and an mass produced one so an static fire with it on would be acceptable risk. 
On the gripping hand it was not an launch,
Booster landings is another game, stating that this landing is experimental in June 2023 and billed the customer for an disposable launch but finding that its some chance of recovering the booster is all goes perfect is not an failed landing in my book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

Agree, I say it count as an fail because it had the customers payload on it, if not I would not count it. On the other hand If it had been an starlink payload it would be interesting as its SpaceX own cargo and an mass produced one so an static fire with it on would be acceptable risk. 
On the gripping hand it was not an launch,
Booster landings is another game, stating that this landing is experimental in June 2023 and billed the customer for an disposable launch but finding that its some chance of recovering the booster is all goes perfect is not an failed landing in my book. 

I’m fine with Amos counting as a failure. I never said it was perfect, it would have a failure even ignoring that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Rarely happy about a scrub but I'm happy for you on this one.

Thx! There was no way I could bail on my wife 2 days in a row (of a 3 day stay), so I had to pick just 1 day to do my own thing. 
 

gorgeous day so far, first day I have seen meaningful sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...