Lukaszenko

Not really sure why everyone's freaking out here. Yeah it exploded, yeah it's not ideal, but I don't see how it created a dangerous situation, and I don't see how it goes outside of SpaceX's development philosophy, which seems have to been working out so far. It was after all a test, and even operational Falcon 9s failed on occasion, trying to stick a landing or otherwise

1 second to an abort? On a space rocket??? Sound engineering practice dictates that they should have at least 15 minutes of margin for anything on a space rocket! I can't even fathom the types of risks these people are taking. What kind of outfit are these clows running here?? /s

It was headline news on BBC, and still on the front page. Also I got some texts about it, and was even brought up during dinner. Granted most of my friends are at least somewhat technical, but still. My girl watched with me, but she didn't seem interested much. Until she realized the damn thing was caught, and hanging in mid-air. "Now that's epic "

They did have a few failures on the droneship already. I indeed don't recall any catastrophic failure of the ship. Granted, this example is of a smaller rocket and a more resilient landing pad, but it's still some sort of indicator.

This guy takes this concept to another level. Not sure how well this translates to astrophotography, but I'm guessing the problem with Starlink is not as catastrophic as it first sounds.

I would think that reduced performance due to the smaller nozzle means that you can carry (much) less payload mass. I mean, what's "performance" in the context of rockets if not payload mass and/ or how far you can throw it?

I didn't watch the video, but on the surface it sounds cringefully close to the ol' "why are we spending money on space when we have problems on Earth" argument

If you fracture tempered glass, it propagates through the whole pane and shatters it into many pieces, so I don't think that's the explanation

This is just absolutely insane. I would guess the whole thing would just brake apart even thinking about trying such a maneuver, especially so low in the atmosphere. But then, I saw the thing do exactly those cartwheels with my own eyes (on livestream), and it indeed didn't break apart. My guess would have been wrong.

I completely agree. I was more a refuting the notion that SpaceX is prioritizing making money over human lives. Even assuming that SpaceX's ONLY goal is making money, the safety of its customers and reliability of its rockets is a necessary prerequisite.

I'm no businessman, but even I know that killing your customers, especially en masse, is not a good business model. Nor is blowing up their payloads. I'm sure there are some brains at SpaceX that know this as well. This is probably why the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in operation, despite not even carrying people most of the time. I'm guessing that the reason you don't hear about how safe Starship should or will be, is because this is such an obvious point that talking and focusing on it too much would only make it suspect. Kind of like if somebody tried to sell you a "vegan tomato". Not to mention that at this stage in development, it would be a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse.

They probably skimmed it off the entry burn of the booster. There's plenty there, at the expense of a hotter and riskier reentry, which they might be willing to try.

Interesting that so many amateur videos of this launch, even cell phone ones, look better than the official SpaceX broadcast. Those ground shots are so much more interesting than watching the booster cameras.

I would guess not. I understand that ground effect is due to increased pressure of air when close to a surface (because the air is more constrained). Increased air pressure is good for wings, but not for rockets. Also, if ground effect did something, I would guess this would be mentioned when describing TWR, as arguably it is most important immediately on takeoff.

Not sure what you're proposing here. That someone who has an understanding, drive, and passion for "A" to just drop it and focus on "B" instead? Whether he gives a damn about it or not? I mean, even if "B" was more important than "A", which in this case is very arguable, I still don't think that expecting people to do a good job at something they don't have a passion for is reasonable or realistic.