Watch - SpaceX Starship prototype explodes on landing

ToxicBunny said:
Yeah... so?

Every other part of that first flight went practically flawlessly. I'd call the whole test a resounding success and Elon Musk seems to think so as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it was a success as a whole, but clearly there are issues. "Going back to the drawing board" would be the correct term since it means there's something that has to be redesigned or fixed.
 
Vorastra said:
Yes, I agree it was a success as a whole, but clearly there are issues. "Going back to the drawing board" would be the correct term since it means there's something that has to be redesigned or fixed.
Click to expand...

Each to there own I suppose.

For the first ever high altitude test flight of a protoype, to expect everything to go absolutely flawlessly is absurd in my opinion.

SpaceX have no need to "go back to the drawing board", they do iterative design so they know what caused this issue and they will rectify it in SN9.

**EDIT**

Though I suppose to clarify, yes "Going back to the drawing board is the correct term, for the vast majority of people. From eg2505 the intention is incorrect as he is implying they need to redesign it or start from scratch again because its clearly broken"
 
ToxicBunny said:
Ummm it was the first ever flight of a prototype starship platform. The landing would have been the ultimate icing on the cake, and they are probably 30 or 40 prototype flights away from even starting to test flying a "production" version of the Starship platform. Who knows how long before there are manned test flights.
Click to expand...
Ya I get the impression that most people have exactly 0% knowledge about product development. Especially when it comes to really complex items that have thousands upon thousands of potential points of failure

But I see we'll instead be arguing the semantics as is the tradition on MyBB
 
They are following the testing to destruction philosophy and SN9 is allready built an ready for testing.

SpaceX has installed another Starship’s nosecone, all but completing the second full-size prototype a matter of days before the first fully-assembled Starship’s risky launch debut.
Click to expand...
Source
 
ToxicBunny said:
Each to there own I suppose.

For the first ever high altitude test flight of a protoype, to expect everything to go absolutely flawlessly is absurd in my opinion.

SpaceX have no need to "go back to the drawing board", they do iterative design so they know what caused this issue and they will rectify it in SN9.
Click to expand...
Clearly we differ in the severity of the colloquialism. Either way, fantastic accomplishment from SpaceX. I'm not going to diminish it.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Ummm it was the first ever flight of a prototype starship platform. The landing would have been the ultimate icing on the cake, and they are probably 30 or 40 prototype flights away from even starting to test flying a "production" version of the Starship platform. Who knows how long before there are manned test flights.
Click to expand...
thats my point, prototypes Shouldn't fail so spectacularly.
especially on live TV,
not when there are shareholders and People thinking its a deathtrap.
What if it was manned?

look back to the crash of Spaceshiptwo, that was also a Prototype as you say.
en.wikipedia.org

VSS Enterprise crash - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
was that nice for the poor widow to see her Husband scattered among the wreckage?



prototypes can explode all they want away from the cameras and people watching,
when all the failures can be hidden from view.

but on live TV, its not really acceptable imo.
 
Back to the drawing board generally means to start over with an entirely new design. Hence drawing board
 
eg2505 said:
thats my point, prototypes Shouldn't fail so spectacularly.
especially on live TV,
not when there are shareholders and People thinking its a deathtrap.
What if it was manned?

look back to the crash of Spaceshiptwo, that was also a Prototype as you say.
en.wikipedia.org

VSS Enterprise crash - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
was that nice for the poor widow to see her Husband scattered among the wreckage?



prototypes can explode all they want away from the cameras and people watching,
when all the failures can be hidden from view.

but on live TV, its not really acceptable imo.
Click to expand...
Why would a prototype at this stage of development be manned?
 
eg2505 said:
thats my point, prototypes Shouldn't fail so spectacularly.
especially on live TV,
not when there are shareholders and People thinking its a deathtrap.
What if it was manned?

look back to the crash of Spaceshiptwo, that was also a Prototype as you say.
en.wikipedia.org

VSS Enterprise crash - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
was that nice for the poor widow to see her Husband scattered among the wreckage?



prototypes can explode all they want away from the cameras and people watching,
when all the failures can be hidden from view.

but on live TV, its not really acceptable imo.
Click to expand...

@Vorastra there we go... Thats why I took issue with his use of "Going back to the drawing board"
 
Vorastra said:
Yes, I agree it was a success as a whole, but clearly there are issues. "Going back to the drawing board" would be the correct term since it means there's something that has to be redesigned or fixed.
Click to expand...
Back to the drawing board, somebody clearing out their desk,
shouldn't explode not like that, on live TV for the world to see.
 
eg2505 said:
Back to the drawing board, somebody clearing out their desk,
shouldn't explode not like that, on live TV for the world to see.
Click to expand...
Spacex has exploded lots of their stuff on live TV in the past.
 
eg2505 said:
I mentioned spaceshiptwo,
that was manned, this luckily wasn't, but what if it had?

again, blowing up on live tv isn't pleasant. especially for those watching.
Click to expand...
You're comparing apples with oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X