>See a pattern here? Each failure from a different root cause. So multiple unsolved failure modes, not iteration. It has never reached orbit, never caught a ship, never demonstrated orbital refueling.
Solid comment on the ISP business but this is straight up bullshit. They absolutely better have different root causes. That’s exactly what iteration looks like. Blowing up subsequent ships for the same problem would be incompetence.
Also the ship has very explicitly been held from an orbital trajectory to ensure predictable reentry in the event of no re-engine light. It’s very apparent from external analysis it was capable of the extra few seconds of engine runtime for an elliptical orbit.
It’s not a significant challenge compared to what they’ve already done.
Each of those previous tests could have easily gone to LEO running the engines just a tiny bit longer.
OPs point is that they intentionally didn’t.
achieving LEO means you need a relight to have a controlled reentry. You don’t want that if you want to avoid countries being mad at you while you iron out those controls
> It’s not a significant challenge compared to what they’ve already done
I don't know an aersospace engineer, within SpaceX or without, who would agree. When you increase speeds you increase energies faster. That has an effect on everything from pump performance to re-entry physics.
> Each of those previous tests could have easily gone to LEO running the engines just a tiny bit longer
Which risks recovery. Given they were replacing their Raptors in the next refresh, pushing an already-obsolete engine for shits and giggles doesn't make sense when you can get good data on e.g. skin performance.
> achieving LEO means you need a relight to have a controlled reentry. You don’t want that if you want to avoid countries being mad at you while you iron out those control
There is zero indication diplomatic pressure has been a constraint on the U.S. space programmes in the last couple years.
They didn't have to increase speeds, they already achieved orbital velocity. To circularize all they need to do is relight. Relighting an engine is very difficult for an engine like Raptor, but they've already demonstrated relight.
> They didn't have to increase speeds, they already achieved orbital velocity
My undertstanding is Starship didn't hit 17,000 mph [1]. LEO orbits tend to be 17,500 mph and up.
Like, I'm not arguing that SpaceX couldn't have circularised on previous tests. But it would have added material risk without any reward. And taking a ship, particularly a re-usable one, particularly a novel one, into its first orbital flight is always exhausting and novel.
It is like a runway taxi test on a plane that is fully capable of flight. Sometimes the plane takes off unexpectedly but the plan is not to do it. Starship can do orbital insertion now despite no plan to do it yet.
Do you think it’s okay for people to indoctrinate their own children with religion and other political views?
Far more harm comes from that than tail risk elimination mandating car seats between 8 and 12 years.
Would you be willing to make all new parents submit to frequent breathalyzers during pregnancy and after birth? Drinking is a massive factor in infant mortality at birth and SIDS.
I don't see a reasonable way to avoid parents imposing their beliefs on their kids so this point you're trying to make is pretty weak man. You're comparing a problem with a very clear solution vs a problem with no clear solution. You wanna take the kids away from all religious people and all people with differing political views? Good luck with that.
Should all parents submit to frequent breathalyzers? Tell me, how many parents, as a fraction of all parents, drink irresponsibly to the point where it significantly endangers their children?
Now compare that number to the fraction of parents who drive their kids around in cars. You're grasping at straws comparing apples and oranges.
You’ve funnily proven the point of how willing people are to put immense burdens on others in the name of safety.
There is a non-zero amount of deaths the car seat law would prevent. The burden will discourage larger families and will contribute to population decline far larger than the lives saved.
You’re not only arguing for it, you’re doing it in a way as if preventing death is such an obvious single dimension to optimize that you’re calling people irrational because they are against something that reduces fatalities.
Your same argument is what leads to prohibition and a long list of other things that suck the color out of life in the interest of “safety”.
Well this is an article about running on hardware I already have in my house. In the winter that’s just a little extra electricity that converts into “free” resistive heating.
Agree except for the meals. They are just OK. The experience of talking to other people on the train can be nice but the food itself is not “delicious”.
If you really like to have good food when you travel, the dining car wears thin quite quickly. I lament the lack of options for better food (I would happily pay more).
I was massively impressed by the food when I took it, certainly as good as any restaurant my expenses policy even attempts to allow me to eat in, and I'd say better than most first class on BA which I've flown a few times, other than the fixed meal times (in F on BA you can eat whenever you want)
Many peaks in the western US are in that range. Lots more with several exceeding if you include Alaska in “the western US”.
reply