it’s pretty clear that a lot of the commentators here are not closely following SpaceX and equate boom=failure. The stated goal for this launch was to ensure that the ground system survived and to gather information on the performance of Super Heavy. It was highly expected that it would go boom at some point in the flight.
The SpaceX model has been iterative testing - they are not afraid to physically test their designs and then feed this back into their modelling. Explosions are expected in their method.
They are also working on making space flight cost effective, this means reusability and working out how to do things more cheaply.
NASA can’t afford to follow this model - not because of cost but because it would be a political disaster. As a consequence they have to overengineer and have a lot more riding on each launch.
Falcon9/Dragon is SpaceX’s human launch system and will be for many, many years.
Starship is SpaceX’s truck and may eventually launch humans but for the first few years, this will be for launching cargo and transporting people outside of the earth’s orbit.
Starship (not Super Heavy) will be used for the moon landings, but it won’t be the way that the people get into space from earth, it will be their transport while they are up there.
“Besides, it didn’t have to happen in the middle of a wildlife sanctuary.”
I guess the writer know nothing about Cape Canaveral or Wallops Launch facility - having wildlife sanctuaries surrounding launch facilities is very common since we don’t want to build infrastructure or have people close to a launch
Environmental concerns are very important and we need to ensure that rocket launches are not significantly impacting the environment, whether that be wildlife preserves, migratory paths, or human habitation.
There is sure to be changes after this first launch to reduce the impact.
…and a little credit to the inventor of transparency in spaceflight- NASA. All their failures and successes have all been very very public because they believe deeply in that. It’s encoded in their mission statement. They are the bar that these private companies have to live up to. When SpaceX televises deaths of human beings and then has to live with that for their principles, then I’ll be impressed. NASA has done it a lot.
They also famously doctored team photographs to remove cosmonauts killed in N1 accidents (and others related to their program). To this day we don’t know exactly how many people died in service to the Soviet space programme, but we have reason to believe it’s a lot. The worst of the N1 accidents basically wiped out their entire moon programme- scientists and all- because the control facility was too close to the launchpad for a worst-case accident. It was decades before the west was able to piece together what really happened there and why the Russians never seemed to be “in” the race to the moon after their early successes.
I’d guess that whatever protected area is around Boca Chica, was there first (to say nothing of the wildlife itself).
Anyway, speaking of Wallops Island, I’ve been there (for a wholly launch-unrelated activity) and it’s just – otherworldly. Get away from the paved areas and it’s not land, yet it’s not water… Loved experiencing it but, my gracious, the mosquitoes there!
It’s pretty clear that a lot of the commentators here are not closely following SpaceX and equate boom=failure. The stated goal for this launch was to ensure that the ground system survived and to gather information on the performance of Super Heavy. It was highly expected that it would go boom at some point in the flight.
I mean, I’m pretty sure most people here are actually very aware that is SpaceX’s strategy. Move fast and break things and all that.
Fun question: using that criterion, what does actual failure ever look like? Is the only thing that matters is the final failure when you abandon the project? I mean, I have no doubt the Soviets learned a lot from every N1 failure too.
Starship (not Super Heavy) will be used for the moon landings, but it won’t be the way that the people get into space from earth, it will be their transport while they are up there.
But Super Heavy is the way Starship itself gets into space from Earth, and the way any orbiting Starship will be refuled to do anything useful. It kind of has to work.
It’s not just launch at all costs and fuck the consequences, there has already been a number of environmental assessments done and action taken, and this will no doubt continue.
The evidence from studies done at the other launch facilities show that it encourages wildlife, but of course that is not all wildlife and is different to Boca Chica where the wildlife preserve predates SpaceX (as Gyrofrog said)
The whole “this planet matters less than rich dude’s rockets” are pretty fucking tedious. The reality is that the past couple of hundred years of global developmental history has fucked us in terms of sustainability - the space race included. If we can’t figure out a way to do this shit sustainable, and I think we can, then we should not be doing it. We should especially not put the needs of corporations ahead of the environment…
I realize that not blindly worshiping space travel is akin to heresy here, but the reality is that we’re not going to colonize the solar system anytime soon - well before we’ve reaching an inescapable tipping point for our ability to live comfortably on much of the planet. Big ass rockets are all well and good, but I’m really sick of people NOT seeing that we have REAL problems right here on earth that needs solving sooner rather than later. It will be pretty pointless to have rockets that can get us off the planet - IF WE’RE ALL FUCKED BECAUSE OF OUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE…
Actual failure in this case would have been to blow up the ground facilities
Does “having to rebuild the tank farm and rip out the launch stand to redesign it with a massive Apollo/Shuttle style pad with flame trenches” come close? I know the damage assessment is underway and whatever solutions are tried will take some time, but it sure feels like that is currently on the table.
I saw the video of everyone on the SpaceX factory floor cheering whatever happened, which is an interesting contrast with rather dour looks in the control room and from Musk. I guess they didn’t get the flashing “applause” sign.
Fortunately for SpaceX this rocket actually was more successful than any of the four N1 launch attempts (flying a couple of minutes longer than the most successful N1) and didn’t completely level the whole launch facility like the 2nd N1 launch attempt did. They’ve also got the resources to build more of these, and faster, than the Soviets did with the N1. Learning how to build these things quickly (and reasonably affordably) is at least as big an accomplishment as getting the rocket to orbit.
Based on the history of development of the Falcon 9 I’d say they have a pretty decent chance at ultimate success, at least in getting the rocket to bring large uncrewed payloads to orbit. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a passenger in one though.
