Yet nothing implies requirement for fossil fuels either. The problem is with the way how energy is generated right now in general, and not with this single project. If carbon-neutral was cheaper, mostly everything would transition to it (and in some countries it’s getting so cheap that they have to introduce the solar tax to stop the transition).
Similar complaint about fossil fuels use could be placed on every BB post and would still be on topic (I even rember someone complaining about it on a post about children’s art supplies, of all the things), so why single out this one?
3 Likes
Well true. I’m just saying we have more methane than we know what to do with. So it’s more of a nuisance than a benefit.
I only mentioned it because I found the dichotomy interesting. I meant no harm or qualms.
1 Like
I understand. I just believe that it’s worth mentioning every time that the dichtomy is caused entirely by political reasons at this time and has nothing to do with technology itself. There’s is a narrative going that fossil fuels are irreplaceable, and while they were partly irreplaceable to reach this point, they are not so anymore.
4 Likes
Biiiig Badaboom! 
2 Likes
Yup. Error already noted above
While methane can be produced from non-fossil fuel sources, as far as I know SpaceX have never mentioned where theirs comes from. Given that most companies would make a song and a dance about using green fuels, I suspect that theirs might well come from fossil fuels.
On the other hand, methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it is sort of better for the environment.
Regarding all the questions in this thread over what was expected and what was actually a failure, Scott Manley has a good explainer:
6 Likes
Remember the old DOS era Shuttle simulator? Fuck, that thing was difficult. One teenager doing the job of 3 trained astronauts. I never, ever even landed from the piggyback training level launch.
5 Likes
Oh boy, I’d forgotten about that. That brings back memories! 
1 Like
That’s an insult to jumbo shrimp. They ARE jumbo relative to most shrimp.
- Put there to telegraph the word “TEST” to everyone watching
2 Likes
the feed changed to a better angle just as the explosion happened. noticed this “glitch” as events were happening. was watching the spaceX official feed as they have the best view for touchdown.
Could you give a quick summary of the main things that were learned, and what was considered new/ impressive with this test (vs other things they’ve done in the past?
Yeah, the proper comparison is that they’re getting far much more done per dollar than other launch system programs, which is a much narrower field. Given how NASA uses private contractors to do most of that work, it’s probably more fair to say that SpaceX gets more done per dollar than ULA (or Lockheed Martin, or whoever else have worked on Constellation, SLS and Orion). NASA sort of gets the blame because they’re the ones running those programs, though I guess the ultimate responsibility here lies with Congress.
That said, it is remarkable how much more SpaceX gets done than ULA. Orion and Dragon started around the same time. Since then, Cargo Dragon has been operational since 2012, and Crew Dragon since earlier this year, for a total cost of around $6.5B (ref). Orion is slowly moving towards something workable, and has so far spent ca $20B. The per-launch costs and turnaround time are comparably different.
5 Likes
10 Likes
It sure was pretty during the flop. Reminded me of Fireball XL5.
2 Likes
I understand there’s a lot of baggage around anything having to do with SpaceX around these parts and won’t wade into it, but notwithstanding all of that this is objectively incredible stuff, and I wonder if the perception of the event might be a little different if the headline read “Starship SN8 explodes on test landing” as opposed to “failed.”
1 Like
you keep using that word
8 Likes
unless the vehicle is a weapon, any “landing” where it explodes is unambiguously a failure
4 Likes
