242
Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket explodes in second test flight | CNN (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

SpaceX’s Starship rocket system reached several milestones in its second test flight before the rocket booster and spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

While this test was much more successful than the last one, it shows it will be at least a couple years before starship is fully operational at this rate if development and who knows when they'll be able to get it crew rated.

So I'm already willing to bet artemis 3 gets delayed by at least a year while starship gets developed, which is a big shame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    But at least they'll get there eventually. NASA so far has been entirely incapable of creating their own lander or even contract anyone who could.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What are you on about? Literally the only people to ever make a lunar lander were NASA??

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    No that one was designed by Grumman. NASA contracted with them for the design, like they're looking to do with the new lander with SpaceX. Blue Origin and Dynetics were also options, but their proposals had huge flaws and were deemed much more risky than SpaceX, which is saying something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    NASA so far has been entirely incapable of creating their own lander or even contract anyone who could.

    The first part of your statement is screwy: NASA doesn't build stuff themselves, they set mission requirements. Their normal approach is to pay a contractor to design and build something to satisfy those requirements. In the case of SpaceX, the company designs and builds with (more of) its own money and then sells rides to NASA.

    The second part is screwier: the only US lunar Landers have been traditional NASA programs. What are you basing your assertion that NASA can't procure one on?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Stop sniffing farts. NASA has landed on so many planets Musk probably can't count that high up. Also, don't forget NASA funds SpaceX playthings. Musk positions himself so high and talks about canceling subsidies, but in reality without them there would be no SpaceX.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago*

    There's only 8 (or 9 depending on who you ask) planets in the solar system. So Musk would have 2 fingers to spare. And we haven't even "landed" on all of them (not sure how you'd land on a gas giant...)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wait for a while then make a claim it was a success. Such a huge ship exploding in low earth orbit which is dense with satellites. We are yet to see what kind of damage that did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth's atmosphere already :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don’t believe that’s true, some of the debris more than likely made it back to the ground over the ocean. There are weather radars that picked up the debris and they don’t scan super high up into the atmosphere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •