The big Starship launch by SpaceX this morning did NOT go as planned. (At least they have a sense of humor about it.)

Apr 20, 2023 1:54 PM

OliverClothesoff70

Views

122162

Likes

1293

Dislikes

65

"...rapid unscheduled disassembly..."

It was an unmanned launch, so the good news is no one was injured or killed.

Oh, just say the damn thing went *pouf* and call it a day.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As everyone else has pointed out, it cleared the tower so successful test. I’d like to add that it didn’t just randomly explode, but tumbled around for several minutes, with working engines, before they self-destructed it. Which, if something similar happened in a crewed vehicle, they’d have a lot of time to work SOMETHING out, whether that’s ejection, regaining control, or radioing to tell their families they love them if nothing else. Point is, it didn’t fail suddenly, which I think is neat-o.

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

They pressed the kill button, because the rocket was completely out of control. Mr M*sk didn't look very happy. Also at least 5 engines didn't work.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Needed more struts.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

RIP Jeb

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I hate Musky with the passion of a thousand suns, but I'll give the engineers and scientists of SpaceX their due. This was a great thing they achieved. A few more start and they'll nail it.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

it was absolutely expected to fail guys lol they had no illusions here. they immediately cheered when it exploded cause it got far

3 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

You and every fanboy have reminded us of this fact a hundred thousand times over the past decade. We know dude. We fucking know you love that elon dong.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 12

Neat

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I'm looking forward to when the rediscover the term lithobraking.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

One of my favorite words.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

they have lots of new data to comb through and figure out what to do better for the next launch. failure is the best teacher (or something like that)

3 years ago | Likes 76 Dislikes 5

I see some chortling over Space X's failure in the comments, and just feel like we should all be reminded of how many rockets NASA and the USSR blew up pioneering their use. This is hard stuff. Rockets are really just well aimed Bombs.

3 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayu0GsrvKQA

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

That was a fun tune - thanks

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It cleared the launch tower. That was the plan, and it succeeded. Anything else is a bonus and getting ahead of schedule.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

I watched it live and it was magnificent.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure"... Douglas Adams & Terry Jones - Starship Titanic

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Sudden and Gratuitous Total Existance Failure isnt it?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Not according to the book or radio show

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Then you have the wrong radio show, mine says that.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Oh, my bad.... I only have the radio show written by ADAMS, and the book written by Terry Jones, based on ADAMS notes.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I have the original 1970's Hitchhiker's Guide radio show with the eagles intro, and he says "sudden and gratuitous" in that. The black ship they steal is a Haggunenon vessel that takes them to an intergalactic war. Also the Restraunt at the End of the Universe is on Magrathea, and the Total Perspective Vortex is on Frogstar World B. I've listened a hundred times, lol. The books read by Adams have some of these things in other places.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...with a simultaneous thermal event.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Once it started to spin it was over lol.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

It was over well before that. The hydraulic pumps failed, and so the computer can control it, but the craft was paralyzed.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Why post this is you don’t understand what the test was for? This was a great success.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

v booom

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

it's a test launch, if it blows up it's succesful, then they know what to fix for the next test launch

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

The OLM after the launch.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Yeah, I still don't understand the dumb fuck decision to not put in a flame trench or a deluge system. I'm willing to bet all the flying concrete and debris damaged the engines that flamed out and the HPU that exploded resulting in the loss of control authority.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Already got a head start on digging a flame trench

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

also the big tanks nearby took damage

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Space X are just playing kerbal space program irl.

3 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

Not enough stages, no asparagus happening, but the flipping was very kerbal.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Not enough struts

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The flipping.... Oh god that's happened to me so many times.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So. Many. Fing Times. Not enough command authority - though, in this case, my guess is that they forgot to check their staging.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It was just the kraken

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It cleared the launchpad and flew beautifully. But in the process the backblast terminated the cement floor, throwing debris up, damaging the some of the engines. Then something failed when they were attempting the most batshit maneuver ever imagined. The more you look at it - the more it looks like a massive disaster was avoided by sheer luck. Still. Getting to orbit is hard, so it was a beautiful failure with great data.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 5

What maneuver were they attempting?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Their stage separation is a very special maneuver where the whole stack flips part way before stage separation.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The stage seperation and boost back are all just larger scale and more advanced versions of the falcon flight. Not sure what you mean?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You didn't wonder why it started flipping over? That's stage separation for Starship. Nothing like Falcon.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It started flipping over because of a loss of control, I'm not certain what the planned pitch maneuver during separation will look like but I know it will not happen under full burn, with so much of the fuel remaining, still well within thick atmosphere.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just wait until they try and catch the booster when its falling back.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It didn't explode due to luck; it was self-destructed to prevent a disaster.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I didn't say it exploded due to luck. The only bit that did work as planned was the self destruct. Everything else was a near disaster.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most of the engines worked, the steel chassis worked, the launch tower worked. And finding out which bits don't work and why is a VERY important step of engineering.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Odd, I would have thought stage separation was pretty well dialed in these days. Some engines were not lit, don't know if that's intentional or accidental.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

That's interesting. We can see that there are 6 rockets off in the photo, but only 5 are out in the diagram at the bottom.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Nice catch!

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Given the limited scope of the test and the fact that "success" had little to do with stage separation, even just setting stage separation up was likely little more than an afterthought

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Brand new vehicle with new tech though.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The flameouts, 3 flamed out on launch, 2 flamed out on ascent, and two flamed out intermittently on ascent.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Defective part?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

SpaceX were actually trying a novel new method of passive staging. I'm not convinced anything went wrong with the mechanism though, rather the stage couldn't separate because the booster engines never shut down, so the booster was constantly pushing up into the second stage. Anyone who's ever hit spacebar in KSP while the previous stage was still running has experienced this exact problem.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Interesting. I look forward to the failure analysis.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ditto. People are already piecing together clues on the SpaceX sub and NASASpaceFlight forum. Current leading hypothesis is that one of the hydraulic power units failed, resulting in loss of steering control. I'd then guess that the engines never shut down because they didn't reach the required altitude/speed. This is all conjecture of course.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Reminds me of the Soviet N1 rocket failure for similar reasons.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

The difference here is that these engines probably shut down when there was an issue, rather than blowing up the rocket, as in the N1 failure.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

More Engines vs. Bigger engines trade off? So far as I know, The Saturn V never blew up. Seems like a better direction.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

True, though that's because they blew up a bunch of test articles first though.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, I give you the SLS. Anyways, the reason the Saturn V had a few massive engines (with literally millions of failure points) is because they didn't have computers to control the plumbing. It had to be mechanical and that would have been impossible, as the N1 displayed.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes, SLS. Almost a decade for the first launch. Launch cadence appears to be a minimum of three years. Billions and billions over budget for the project. 4 billion per launch. It almost seems like there might be a faster, cheaper method of development.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Losing an engine or two out of 30+ is no biggie, mission will complete just fine. Losing one giant engine means instant failure.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Losing an engine or two out of 30+ is also instant failure, if they blow up when they fail.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well that's an if and a possibility, not assured by any means. We just saw half a dozen fail without blowing up.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes but we have advanced computers controlling and monitoring the flow to every engine now. Our ability to shut off an engine before it explodes is pretty solid now it seems.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

FYI, it exploded because they engaged the fight termination system when staging didn't happen. Otherwise it would have continued flipping through space until in came back down... somewhere.

3 years ago | Likes 55 Dislikes 4

FYI, its also interesting they let the thing spin out of control for ~4 loops before they blew it up https://www.youtube.com/live/uouujjgkR3A?feature=share&t=29046 . Normally they abort pretty quickly when things go out of control

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It was definitely a unique launch.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Technically the FTS engaged itself when the tumbling rocket went far enough out of the launch path iirc

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Checked it out, but this terminology has existed for a while: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=rapid_unplanned_disassembly&action=history

3 years ago | Likes 138 Dislikes 6

I've become quite fond of that term since learning it!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a running joke in the industry.

3 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 0

in many industries, not exclusive to space bois

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"Underwent a thermal event" = caught fire, according the my engineer buddy

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I have a colleague who worked on an airship that had a “unscheduled descent to land followed by a runaway thermal event”. He is quite adamant that his blimp did not “crash and burn”.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

The incident report is quite clear. It crashed, and then burned

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

As I understand, the FAA report doesn’t cover the burning, and the ground report doesn’t cover the crashing. The crash actually caused structural damage that didn’t start a fire until the power systems energized the next day.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

See also: Lithobraking

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Asking the same lines as percussive maintenance, thermal reconfigured, and high impedance air gap

3 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 0

my favorite is "magic smoke" -- as in if you short something while soldering a circuit board "all of the magic smoke escapes" and the device no longer works

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or lithobraking.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

My fave is "failed injection orbit and impacted planetary surface due to imperial-metric mixup"

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

#MarsOrbiter Unintentional deorbit is the listed cause on Wikipedia lol

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Okay, what's high impedance air gap?

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Forgot to plug it in

3 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

As a pretty techy guy, this was my most embarrassing call to IT...

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

It happens to everyone. 😂

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Actually if you listened to the broadcast they were very clear that if they got the thing of the launchpad and clear of the tower they considered the test a success. They got way further than that and got some great data. Whatever you might feel about Elon you have to consider that tests like these are going to be extremely important if we ever want to colonize space in any capacity. Today was a good day.

3 years ago | Likes 396 Dislikes 38

Why would we want to colonize space? Aren't we happy fucking up 1 planet? The arrogance of humanity really gets to me anymore

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

If we can make it to Mars and Terraform it, we should be able to do the same thing to earth. All Elon cares about is more taxpayer $$$

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

They set the expectations a bit too low IMO. This outcome is still pretty good for where their development program is at, but not fantastic. Would have liked to see fewer Raptor engines malfunctioning also.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Don’t agree with Elon on politics at all and think he is a fascist fuck. Though I want space x to succeed in every way possible.

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

100% agree.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I'm sorry, I know rocket science be hard and shit. But, "As long as it doesn't immediately vaporize itself when we turn it on, it'll be a success" sounds like a low ass bar to set.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

It's important to have incremental success in testing

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Colonize Mars? With those things running around???!! You can count me out!!!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Let's rephrase from "however you might feel about Elon" to "however much of a cunt Elon factually proved and continues to prove himself to be"

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

That would have been a better way to put it yes, if only we could edit comments :D

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You and every single elon musk fan boy has been reminding us of this since the fraking falcons. Give it a rest dude.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Not a Musk fanboy, but the fact you made that assumption tells me everything about your moral character.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Space colonization is an extremely far-fetched fantasy peddled to the masses to launder the image of defense contractors, the surveillance state, and industrial concerns who's continued status quo operation further dooms the future of humanity in this, the only planet we'll ever habitate.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 23

I hope we fail trying to colonise space. We're bad at taking care of planets

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

We are never going to colonize space. We are much more likely to become extinct than to spread in any meaningful fashion outside this planet.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 6

You're right. People who believe sci-fi is non-fiction usually aren't big fans of reality.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I want space x to succeed, but I don't want them to go through with any of Elon's Mars plans. They are stupid. No; fucking stupid.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Colonization shouldnt be the goal, why look for another planet when we are royally fucking the one we already have. Any long lasting colony would require some level of "terraforming", but if we were capable of doing so, why not invest in reversing the damage we have done here

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because the terraforming methods we're even theorizing right now are fucking brutal and take ages. Stuff like blocking sunlight, smashing meteors into planets and fun stuff like that.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Elon is about as influential to what's going on at SpaceX as I am.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Not the take I was going for, quite the opposite actually.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

your take was wrong

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

That people shouldn't hate on SpaceX just because Elon is involved with SpaceX? That is a wrong take?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

no that Elon is remotely involved in making space ships fly, other than financially

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We will never, ever colonize space in any significant capacity.

3 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 30

Detroit is more of an inhospitable wasteland than anything in space and yet here you are.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 8

It's not though, and to think so is the domain of sci-fi. Do you know anything about space. Radiation. Vacuum. Distance. Extremely sparse resources. Like more sparse than in Detroit or even in your moms house.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's sad that you got downvoted, because you're right. Idiots will continue to believe in science fiction nonsense, because thinking critically about things isn't in style right now. Sadly, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it at this point.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Not with that attitude!

3 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 8

Not with that physics and biological reality!

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 9

*altitude

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I don't know why people think we're ever going to colonize space. Humanity seems to think space is meant to be traveled, but it's actually the opposite. The vast distance coupled with speed limitations mean that our short lifespans and fragile anatomy cannot feasibly traverse any meaningful distance. Even if we could, what then? Can't communicate with Earth. Barely any useful supplies to build anything with. It's just silly and unrealistic. Sci-fi has made our expectations unrealistic.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Yeah, it's total bullshit.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Interstellar colonization, possibly, but you are overstating the difficulties of colonizing this solar system.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well yeah, local colonization is certainly easier, but there are plenty of hurdles with that, too. We need to develop a much more efficient way to move mass at speed for much less money, because rockets aren't it.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ok lets just wait then for the next meteor to finish us.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Let's not forget about the cosmic rays and solar winds, high energy particles, that will irradiate us greatly on any long-term (few years) journey. At this moment, any person who would go to Mars would have a great probability to die from radiation damage or cancer before arriving there or shortly after.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

you can say with almost absolute certainty that elon have nothing to do with any technical related stuff in spacex. he is the money, that's it

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Oh I agree, I didn't mean that bit as "Elon did this" but rather like "let's not shit on SpaceX just because Elon is involved with the company". Bad phrasing.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Nope. Thats plain wrong.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

He's not wrong. Musk is a financier and a marketer. He doesn't know shit about rockets aside from what the engineers explain to him patiently. He pretends he's an engineer, but that's just his ego talking.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

He did study physics. And without him there wouldn’t be SpaceX or reusable rockets.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 7

You mean the fake degree?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

he got a bachelor degree in physics and finance, that's it. and he won't let you suck his dick, stop trying.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Uh, couldn't the rocket also not have blown up?

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

not really, since that is what the rocket is doing the whole time. Blowing up in a slightly controlled manner.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 7

Rockets burn fuel, it's not combustion so they are in fact not blowing up at all unless they fail.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

what is burning if not combustion?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It definitely could have made the whole trip yeah. However that would have been quite a remarkable achievement when developing a new type of rocket that it functions 100% the way you want to on it's first ever test flight.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

SpaceX's philosophy on this has basically been "hey we could work on this rocket for 7 or 8 years until we are totally sure it won't blow up. Or we could work on it for 2 years, then do a test that will blow it up, then blow up another one a year later. By year 4 we'll actually have a working rocket for way less money than the slow way would have caused."

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Fuckin Elon cronies are the worrrrse. You actually think that fascist had anything to do with today's "success" besides all the toxic elements released into the air/water?

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

seriously. Rocket explodes and you have these choads going ACTHUALLY and "Masterful gambit, sir"

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

I would appreciate not to make assumptions about me and my views. Now kindly fuck off.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Spacex succeeds despite him...

3 years ago | Likes 171 Dislikes 15

Yeah I agree, it just seems like a lot of people want SpaceX to fail because of Elon.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not really. No other space launch company would try the frankly ridiculous things that spacex succeeds with without musk's brand of crazy.

3 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 52

You cab feel about him any way you want. But he did create SpaceX. He pushed space tech with his will. If you can’t give him credit for that for political reasons then you are unable to look at things factual. I don’t like him or his attitude, but I can accept what he has accomplished.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 12

He's an asshole, but do you people like you think it's literally a wild coincidence he's started 2 wildly hard industrial companies that are miles ahead of competition in transforming both industries? (Space & cars)

3 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 57

First part of username checks out.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

In the case of Tesla, he didn't start shit, he invested then proceeded to fire the two people that came with the concept and had a working prototype. If we take investment as creation of the idea not even Zuckerberg would be the creator of Facebook (Sean Parker and Peter Thiel were the early investors)

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

in the case of Space X, I'd put my chips on Tom Mueller before Elon.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

He hasn't done shit and he has nothing to do with any success those companies might have. In fact, him being involved is a great hindrance because he can't stop himself from being a massive twat for even a single day.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

TBF, he did more or less start SpaceX and transform that industry. But he did not start Tesla - he bought it - and really didn't transform anything there. Car manufacturers were already shifting to EVs.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

I know he didn't start Tesla, but other car co.psnirs were not shifting to EVs. Come on. The Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Bolt were about it, and they are little POS jokes made just as virtue signals to Greens.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Do you believe yhat one person should get all the credit because they were the money that started something? He gave the directive. Given what we know, he doesnt deserve the credit. Just like Bezos or other big corporations. Some work despite their CEO. The pure blunders that they produce when the project isnt managed by competent individuals, is proof of that. So no what aboutisms. SpaceX succeeds depsite Musk. Tesla got its position despite him too

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Elon didn't start SpaceX or Tesla, he purchased them from people far smarter than him.

3 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 7

He definitely founded SpaceX. He didn't found Tesla, but he was employee #5 and was responsible for most of their early fundraising and financing. He's a twat, but he was definitely a key figure in the rise of both companies to industry leaders.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

Imgur is such a waste. He might be dick, but he just magically, because of his large dickness, has had practically a touch of Midas as far as business goes. But if denial and bitterness keeps you guys alive, then please continue. I'm very happy for you.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Tesla yes. SpaceX no. That has always been his baby. He founded it, and hired management to staff it.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It clearly states in Musks purchase contract for Tesla that he's allowed to tell people he started the company...

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

If you think that Tesla is miles ahead in the car industry you are wrong. They had a good start, but that’s about it. The quality of their cars (experienced it myself) is not comparable with BMW, Mercedes etc. They had some technological advantages but since then a lot has happened.

3 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

You have had an unusual experience. My Tesla is nicer overall than the Audi and BMW my wife has had. Not by a lot, but we both prefer the Tesla's amenities. We just like to keep one ICE car around.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Can’t imagine actually. A friend of mine put about 10k into his Tesla Model 3 (the more expensive performance edition) to make the interior nice. And it still feels like sitting in a public train to be honest.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you're looking for quality, it's not going to come from BMW or Mercedes... unless your definition of quality disregards reliability that is.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Last 2 BMWs lasted 400.000 kilometers before sold. No issues at all. Meanwhile people report that their steering wheel on a model s plaid is starting to crumble after a few months.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And one of those things that happened was Elon buying Tesla. Now I'm not saying Tesla failing to keep up is Directly caused by Elon taking control from the original creators, but it might be.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

[deleted]

[deleted]

3 years ago (deleted Sep 20, 2025 8:33 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Why would I lie? It’s well known that Tesla has huge quality issues. Just look it up on YouTube… also their self driving technology which is only relying on cameras is not state of the art.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's imgur. The fucking bitterness is so fucking deep it's hilarious.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Started?

3 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 4

*made them a success

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

SpaceX: yes. Tesla: no.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

Spacex succeeds because the US government seems to like giving Musk huge subsidies. Lots of great people there, terrible Musk, and mind boggling amounts of US tax money.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Not subsidies, sales and service contracts.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Oh boi you're going to want to read up on that because you are piss ignorant at present.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And also subsidies, one does not exclude the other.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I don't have to like Elon to like space, or even SpaceX. The fact that SpaceX has been so successful despite Elon is incredible.

3 years ago | Likes 129 Dislikes 6

They probably have dozens of people dedicated to keeping him from screwing with the real work.

3 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 6

You’re speculating. Benatar you hate him. I don’t like him either but this bullshit made up stuff is childish tbh.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 11

They probably have someone to dangle keys in front of him or something.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Insiders have said they have people who are essentially Elon-wranglers, to keep him away from any actual work.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Conspiracy theory: one or two of these came up w/ the idea he should buy Twitter to keep him preoccupied

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

He is part if that success whether you like it or not. Entrepreneurs who push boundaries are almost never saints. Why can’t you people accept that?

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 17

Because rich man bad

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 9

“Just accept that people who lucked into success are often assholes” -some idiot

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

I’m sure you would do as impressing things with money to get you started.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

I’m sure you should have spell-checked your insult before posting it.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I mean, I don't disagree, but I feel like "saint" isn't the question at all. Just like minimally decent person is the bar. But I imagine they were mainly questioning his leadership, as opposed to his prior marketing success and risk-taking, which did help propel SpaceX to be in a position for doing this kind of thing with huge government contracts.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

If only we had a planet that was already perfect for us for thousands of years to come, if we could save it from climate change RIGHT NOW..

3 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 12

Improving our launch capability and access to space will be critical if we want to fix our planet. Do you really want to be dependent on Russia and China to get our sensors and assets up there?

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Humanity's future is invariably amoung the stars. I agree we need to focus a lot of effort in taking care of what we have now, but it would be silly to abandon space entirely. An entire solar system of exploration, scientific potential, and resources is waiting for us out there.

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 5

We're closer to becoming space dust than to becoming space explorers.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Humanity's future is meaningless if we don't secure humanity's present.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

"Fix Earth first" is a fallacy. We are more than capable of doing multiple important things simultaneously.

3 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 18

I'd take it a step further. 'Do this thing first' isn't how civilization works. We're six billion people of different skillsets, and while some things can and should be emphasized, we explore in all directions simultaneously. And in THIS case fixing earth and colonizing space are the same thing, it's not one or the other.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

We could, but we don't.

3 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 4

Not a fallacy, an opinion. We have a moral duty to maintain our own environment before we attempt to spread to others.

3 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

I don’t think it’s a fallacy, more a description of priorities. And if the tech to do both is actually the same, pumping out the boat is more important than building a raft

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I wonder how much pollution space tourism will contribute to climate change or these explosions harming critical habitats around the launch

3 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 5

Space tourism won't be a thing anytime soon. Putting factories and polluting industry into space when possible will be.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

That's a great question the answer is: Launch areas typically result in protections to large areas of wildlife land. The methane/ liquid oxygen cycle used by in this rocket is pretty environmentally friendly compared to earlier liquid fueled rockets, and its carbon emissions are equivalent-to-or-lower than those from hydrogen/oxygen cycle.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

Thanks! That’s interesting, the information I’ve read claims that both launch sites and fuel have quite an environmental impact.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It's not even a rounding error compared to the aviation industry. And they do environmental reviews before each launch.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, i bet these are at the top. Straight past China's ever increasing amount of coal plants. Or the coal plants in the US powering cryptomining.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

China is also launching rockets.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It did go as planned. The mission scope was "clear the launch tower without damage to the pad", and they did.

3 years ago | Likes 761 Dislikes 14

No it wasn't. The mission scope was reach space, orbit the earth for 90 minutes, and return. Clearing the launch pad without destroying it was a success, but the mission itself was not. Please don't reflexively defend Elon Musk.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 9

3 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

That looks at least 40% wrecked.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

they expressed it early on and warned throughout the web stream of the unknown that could follow. RUD is a term that a rocket company who does a bunch of test launches would have as they happen often and not all should have alarm

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

RUD goes back to NASA days IIRC

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Without it we would have never made it to the moon.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The reason why NASA made it to the moon was von Brauns ingenuity and the 100.000 Americans spending a decade of their life's on it.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They set the expectations very low, but even ignoring that this was still a pretty decent result. Making it through stage separation would have been fantastic on the first full-stack launch.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Yeah, made it through maxQ even.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Uh, they wrecked the pad. If no damage to the pad was a success criteria they failed at that. Likely lost a couple engines to the chunks of pad material they blew off.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Crazy how life really is just like Kerbal missions for these guys

3 years ago | Likes 249 Dislikes 0

Courage and Stupidity ftw!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yo when the rocket started tumbling mid flight I swear I was like "Check your center of lift!"

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The way i was told, "yeah even as rocket scientists, at the end of the day we really are making our best guess & pushing a big red button."

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah but KSP method means a dude in his underwear can go from "zero knowledge" to "understands Δv, orbital mechanics, and can put the parts of a rocket together to make it to another planet in a pretty good simulation" over the course of a day. Think about what getting to do that does for the engineers that are doing it.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

NASA plays KSP. Rocket science on their budget.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You think NASA was successful at the first try?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

NASA does not do rapid prototyping like this. Which is a pity as they would be better for it, but too much politics get in the way for NASA to do that.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They're not going to make stupid mistakes like getting the launch order in the wrong order. Activates parachute then swivel engine then disengages booster then activate boosters xD But mistakes will still happen. Even more in an unsimulated environment.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yep. Baby steps! Can we clear the tower? Can we separate the main stage? Can we land the first stage? Can we separate the second stage? Can the ship make it into space? Can it maneuver in space? Can it land? Etc

3 years ago | Likes 83 Dislikes 1

Will Elon fuck it up?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

It seems like SpaceX might be well enough insulated from his shenanigans?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There is a special team just for that.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Would you rather them do it all at once and stick people inside?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That’s how my first 100 kerbals died …

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

can we build it?

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"I uh.. Uh.... I think so..."

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Will they come?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I don't think they loaded it with real Kerbals though.

3 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

I use probe cores if possible, keeps hiring costs down.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

MechJeb 4 life!

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

if they kill valentina Jeb is going to WRECK THEIR SHIT

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Doubtful. I think he's currently stuck in high orbit.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

High orbit rescue in KSP is still one of the most awesome game experiences I've ever had.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

dude he can deorbit without a spaceship as long as he lands on his head

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They blew the hell out of the pad, so not exactly a success. Not sure why they don't use a water dampening system they way most large rocket launches do.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Preserving the pad was not a key goal (wrecking the launcher tower might have thrown a wet blanket on things)

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There was debris flying up from the pad at launch, so I'm iffy on the part where it's undamaged.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Uhh, the "without damage to the pad" absolutely did not happen, lol. The pad is absolutely destroyed. Parts of it smashed a NSF camera van.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

The tower seems unscathed though, and it's way more expensive than the concrete stool.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, but if anything major is cracked it's going to be unusable, so now you gotta throw the whole damn site away.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What pad?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Pad got kinda fucked up and did throw shrapnel pretty far

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Did anyone see those broken chunks of the LaunchPad the size of a van flying up is high as the top of the launch Tower?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I mean, yeah, but a 747 worth (300 tons) of stainless steel and ceramic tiles exploded 24 miles above the Gulf Coast of Texas. Some of the chunks were ~500 lbs. Maybe we don't do launches where the debris field includes a few thousand square miles?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That wasn't a launch, it was a landing. You can't land from orbit without your potential debris field being very long. For launches, including this one, all American launches are over water specifically for public safety.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They needed data on aerodynamics and flying with a lot of engines. Doing flips in the air gives them data. If it went perfectly they wouldn't learn as much from it.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Looked like the Soviet N-1 rocket launch.......didn't go well for Them either.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

My tax dollars at work.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 10

I mean...kinda? Some of it.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No. The majority of it. Not only is the United States his largest customer by far, paying SpaceX instead of launching with their own systems, SpaceX ALSO gets direct government subsidies. Without money from the US government, MY TAX DOLLARS, SpaceX would not and could not exist.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I hope we'll get some pictures of the launch mount. I'd love to see if there was any damage after they reinforced many parts of it

3 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

I am in a conference at JSC and the presenter at the time is a flight director. She paused her presentation, we watched the feed, and she said the cheering and dancing of the launch ops team would be a good preliminary sign that there is minimal or no damage.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

This seems to have turned out wrong. Massive damage lol

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 1

That's a a big hole. They're going to need water or a way to redirect the exhaust for the next one.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"Unscheduled" typically indicates unplanned.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

I have the same attitude tbh. Did I end up in jail? Sure, but I got out of the house today, which was my real goal

3 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 4

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But this really is how R&D goes for space launches...

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

For us alcoholics, it's "did I drink today? No? Successful day". Really simplifies things.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, they did dig a huge crater over the OLM so they will have to work out a solution for that.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Trench, water or both? Who's running the betting pool?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's plenty of solutions for that, they just wanted to go so fast that now they've damaged their launchpad and will have to do extensive reparations and improvements.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

On the bright side, half their flame trench is already dug out!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And in this one launch, more pollution was generated then teslas electric cars have prevented since the company was formed…just Elon saving the planet some more

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 12

I bet you did a lot of reading to come up with that statement

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Look I hate Elon too, but this is just flat out inaccurate. EPA estimates tesla saves 52000 tons of CO2, per year. Each launch generates less than 3000 tons. Yeah its still a good chunk though.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Rocket launches release 1 gigagram of black carbon in the air each year, a steadily increasing number. I don’t know how much pollution this particular rocket gives off, but since it’s the biggest ever, I doubt it’s only 3k tinned And by the time he has a working one, I have no doubt he will have released more then 52k tonnes. My initial comment was more of a sarcastic jab, but regardless, people should stop defending the ones polluting our thin layer of air, it’s like shitting in the bathtub

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

I wonder if that includes the generation of the electricity or not and if we track the actual numbers or not

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Build fast, fail fast, learn fast. Works better than spending ten years trying to make something guaranteed to work but then finding something you never thought about.

3 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 7

This is a software development mantra. It only works because the bricks, mortar, and rubble involved with software is covered under personnel and is a sunk cost given. Look at the F35 debacle if you want to see the disaster that is Agile trying to do real work.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Agile does not work when lives are on the line.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Can't imagine a way that applying the model of facebook to space travel could be problematic. Facebook only caused a small number of genocides and a teensy bit of harmful disinformation leading to mass shootings and horrendous policies.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I'm not sure I agree with this across all industry sectors

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

As long as you have good risk management this is good in most areas. If it takes you 10 years to make each generation of something you will learn very slowly. This is why simulations are great, you can build before you build.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's most common in tech and even there it's fucking stupid. This is how we get facebook being largely responsible for at least one genocide because their content moderation staff was shit.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Great! I love seeing them blow up millions of dollars of resources so they can "learn fast" about how to spend more taxpayer money getting to a worthless empty planet! We definitely don't have problems on Earth to prioritize and watching tech billionaires applaud themselves for blowing up a rocket doesn't feel like watching them furiously masturbate on the poor.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 12

People have a very poor understanding of what this means. Let's put it another way - NASA is the biggest customer of SpaceX, paying for services they either cannot get anywhere else or can't get nearly as cheaply, and account for about three quarters of SpaceX revenues. They aren't just giving money to SpaceX for nothing.

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

They are. Mars is nothing. Don't get me wrong, the nine year-old in my heart is like "SPACE, YEAHHHH!" but the beaten-down millennial pragmatist in me is like "mmm, it's hard to watch them applaud themselves for blowing up enough money to feed every hungry person in Florida". Mars should not be a priority right now, even if it makes nine year-old me sad.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 9

But it's not just about Mars. These developments are a stepping stone towards many things, including working in space, space exploration, and planetary protection (not from aliens, just rocks). We NEED to one day be able to move beyond Earth. That could be thousands of years from now. Could be sooner. But it has to start somewhere.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Great! I love seeing them throw away millions of maravedis of resources so they can "learn fast" about how to spend more crown money finding a faster route to India! We definitely don't have problems in Spain to prioritize and watching wealthy monarchs applaud themselves for sending sailors into the jaws of sea monsters doesn't feel like watching them furiously masturbate on the poor.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

So your response to me saying "hey let's not waste tons of taxpayer money on this" is "imperial colonialism was good, actually"? You're not making this seem better to me.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You made a funny copypasta, don't look too deep into it. Was taxpayer money 'wasted' on NASA's 'failures'? A lot of people thought so. The inventions and discoveries made in that process have improved human life immeasurably. There are always shortsighted detractors who can't see the massive potential benefit for all of humanity.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Something tells me, if Elon had nothing to do with SpaceX, people like you would be celebrating right now or have no opinion at all.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

I don't like Elon, but I also don't like seeing my money wasted on ambitious space projects while no one is doing anything about climate change here on earth.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Who and what would you like to see being done instead?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

NASA doesn't pay per spent rocket - these contract has a fixed amount for a goal. With “old space” aka ULA the contracts tend to be “cost plus incentive” so those are the one pissing away money.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I don't know what gave you the impression that my only problem with NASA giving a private company a bunch of our money for this is that the rocket blew up.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just how do you think that spacecraft are made?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I thought that SpaceX was entirely privately funded except when NASA paid for Commercial Resupply Services. I looked into it and found out I was wrong. HOLY CRAP, 85% of their funding is from NASA. Consider my mind BLOWN.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

NASA's contract have specified amounts for _deliverables_, regardless of how many rockets or infrastructure they take.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It is private funding when you sell goods and services, even if the customer is a government entity.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Bending over backwards to justify massive waste of taxpayer funds because you think the way they're wasting my money is cool. A'ight.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

They did not plan to have it explode before stage separation. They planned to have it separate and the upper stage to continue on a suborbital path, splashing down near Hawaii. That was the plan. That they still consider it a success despite not going as planned doesn't mean it went as planned.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 11

They specifically said that was just icing for a cake. It would have been great to have, and they "planned it" in that you don't just launch a rocket and forget about it once it clears the pad, but the mission criteria was simply, "clear the tower".

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

The explosion was not planned, full stop. Again, that the mission is considered a success is not synonymous with it going as planned.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

I do not know why you're being downvoted, they literally used the word "unplanned" to describe the explosion.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They didn't use just that word, they used am engineering term "rapid unplanned disassembly" which is actually defined in an engineering scope.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

No, you are wrong. This is how it works: 1. Set a goal that signals success - launch and clear the pad with enough engines firing. 2. If it continues flying, make a plan for what to do and what may happen minute by minute. 3. Whether or not it continues flying, collect telemetry data and analyze.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

You get it. Rockets don't just disappear once the mission has succeeded!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Sure. The rocket did not do what was planned for it after mission success, thus the flight was not according to plan even though it was successful.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

No, you are wrong. SpaceX themselves called it "rapid unplanned disassembly". Unplanned, by definition, is not according to plan. I do not say that the mission was unsuccessful, just that it did not go as planned.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

The plan had a primary objective (clearing the launch tower) and stretch goals, the last of which were stage separation and a hard splashdown in the ocean. The thing reached 39 km and either it broke apart in the tumbling fall or the self-destruct charges were fired.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Don't get too stuck on the meanings of individual words in a term used to describe a particular event during launch.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

In this case, the plan was always to blow up the starship. They just wanted to get it as far as it would go before doing so, and at least clear of the tower.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0