55
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
55 points (98.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8164 readers
419 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
That's a glorious boom
But that's why they do testing, it's cheaper to boom on testbed than on a launch pad or in the air
But the idea behind doing things with the risk of them going boom is to learn things. I'm not sure they're learning what they need if they're going from testing Starship in launches to going back to static firing. If the idea is to rework the engines for Starship, I have to wonder if that's a fundamental enough step to put the entire project back to pretty much square one.
Could you possibly whitewash this any harder?
I don't think that means what you think it means.
What do you think whitewash means?
Covering up the truth by means of displaying fake information, like saying it doesn't apply here because there was no data involved and the source was not a political entity.
Thanks for the vocabulary suggestion and modified definition, but my usage of the term was just fine.
Agreed. "Spin" would be the better word.
It's another embarrassment added to a long list of embarrassments at this point. SpaceX has utterly failed to deliver on its contracts and at some point people need to recognize that the private sector does not always do it better. Especially when the company is run by a conman.
And our tax dollars.