I remember that article that got flagged recently predicted that we should expect broken windows in peoples' homes. I wonder if anyone will do an analysis to see what the article got right and what it got wrong. I cannot find the link anymore.
SpaceX is obviously willing to take risks, but yoloing the pad damage situation is surprising. They've had engine damage from flying pad before. If they had lost enough engines at T0 and the rocket had fallen back on the pad, there would have been an unholy conflagration. And Lord knows how long it would have taken to get another launch license.
I would summarize this launch as "It's better to be lucky than to be careful." The launchpad risk was not one they should have taken. Had one of those chunks of debris hit slightly differently, the rocket would not have cleared the tower. Amazing that the rocket got so far!
the negative press around this launch is pretty odd. It was actually a huge milestone for the company. Move fast and break things used to be cool. But now people don’t like Elon and Zuck or ruffling anyone’s feathers.
Turns out some of those things that got broken outside of the company were important and people cared about them. Funny how things that work great in software development don’t work great when applied to the real world, eh?
Oh yeah. It’s so very odd that public opinion is not in favor of moving fast and breaking things anymore!
Who cares if by doing that Facebook facilitated ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar, or the biggest privacy scandal of the century! Just look at those dividends!
Clearly are going to need to fix the debris issue with a flame diverter or aggressive suppression. Obviously they didn't anticipate the booster eating through the entire concrete pad and boosting the beach into the atmosphere.
> Obviously they didn't anticipate the booster eating through the entire concrete pad and boosting the beach into the atmosphere.
I'm pretty sure there were voices at SpaceX who predicted this outcome. We've been launching orbital rockets for over 65 years now, and every single launch facility for heavy lift vehicles uses flame diverters and water deluge systems.
It baffles me how anyone could even think that the most powerful rocket in history could do without these systems in place.
That's a bit I find surprising. I would have thought that working out if the pad was up to the job would be one of the easier rocket-science tasks they were faced with.
There was sand falling on livestreamers within minutes of launch. They're definitely going to have to get the debris issue fixed, to say nothing of the former pad itself.
[+] [-] patapong|2 years ago|reply
"3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount.
Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch.
Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784
[+] [-] qayxc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rurounijones|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alangibson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fatnino|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xnx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlindner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belter|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway1777|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pimlottc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] karlkatzke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camillomiller|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justrealist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qayxc|2 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure there were voices at SpaceX who predicted this outcome. We've been launching orbital rockets for over 65 years now, and every single launch facility for heavy lift vehicles uses flame diverters and water deluge systems.
It baffles me how anyone could even think that the most powerful rocket in history could do without these systems in place.
[+] [-] fatboy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alangibson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mlindner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mouse_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everseeking|2 years ago|reply