No shit. I don't recall seeing or hearing anyone claim it was a success. They just gave the failed rocket a comical cheer as it crashed into the gulf, so I think they know it didn't do so hot.
The loss of a booster should be considered at least a partial failure with Starship goals. Why? The Boosters are what are required for launches, and if you seek to achieve rapid reusability you need to constantly fly the boosters. If they're lost, you can't do that. It doesn't matter if you have a billion Starships if you don't have any boosters.
They were already planning on sacrificing the booster for this mission though. It was meant to perform a "landing" in the gulf, then explode and sink. It did try and start up its engines on the way back, but it looks like it failed at that point.
No shit. I don't recall seeing or hearing anyone claim it was a success. They just gave the failed rocket a comical cheer as it crashed into the gulf, so I think they know it didn't do so hot.
The problem with Starship compared to any rocket program is that people would eagerly go "oooo *seal sclap* because data collection, totally a success" compared to any other program.
They were already planning on sacrificing the booster for this mission though. It was meant to perform a "landing" in the gulf, then explode and sink. It did try and start up its engines on the way back, but it looks like it failed at that point.
SpaceX has already proven they can catch a superheavy booster on the return, what happened with this booster dosen't mean shit. It was going to be wasted anyway, who cares what happened once it did it's job, putting the Starship up high enough for it's own engines to take over the rest of the way.
The fact that they lost an RVAC engine and were still able to orbit the Starship is damn impressive and not a failure at all.
>They were already planning on sacrificing the booster for this mission
> It was meant to perform a "landing" in the gulf, then explode and sink. It did try and start up its engines on the way back, but it looks like it failed at that point.
I mean, by your admission it was a failure and did not perform the role it was meant to soooooo, the flight remains a partial failure.
Case in point, Soyuz-11 returned perfectly to earth. The problem? The detachment of the orbital module lead to a leak in the crew module and because of that, they didn't have oxygen and the crew asphyxiated.
>They were already planning on sacrificing the booster for this mission
> It was meant to perform a "landing" in the gulf, then explode and sink. It did try and start up its engines on the way back, but it looks like it failed at that point.
Not all the way, it was meant to soft splash but maybe with that one out early they had to tweak on the spot and aborted, idk.
One or even several failures in a cluster especially with new engines isn't weird btw. Saturn V had 5 on each of the first two stages and was designed to fly with one out on either.
Boosting back is just added value because we can show off a bit now, as long as you don't lawn dart the bit you care about it's all good.
Look, if we are to be pedantic the point was to test the landing procedure with Superheavy. You need to land that for future flights, if that fails then you've got to build a new booster for the new flight. You don't get rapid reusability, which means you don't get what the Starship program is after.
Look, if we are to be pedantic the point was to test the landing procedure with Superheavy. You need to land that for future flights, if that fails then you've got to build a new booster for the new flight. You don't get rapid reusability, which means you don't get what the Starship program is after.
yeah why didn't they just use the finished and perfected version of this vehicle development program from the future for Test Flight 12, are they retarded?
yeah why didn't they just use the finished and perfected version of this vehicle development program from the future for Test Flight 12, are they retarded?
They landed the boosters in previous flights, they haven't in this, are they retarded? My point was that for Starship to be a success they need to land both the booster and Starship. The booster wasn't able to complete it's boostback burn to a gulf location thus it was a failure. I am aware it was not meant to be a return to launch site, but as I said you need both Starship and super heavy to work for it to be a success. If you don't get both, then it ain't going to be rapid reusability. I know most people want to go "wow, big booster flying", but it ain't that simple.
Hell, the only thing Starship looks for rn is Starship. Space datacentres are still in development and need to deal with the heat problem. They'll probably go for large radiators but there's a lot of development left. You can't just go "data collected = flight success" or else you could go, well hmmm O-ring failure limits were known on STS-25 thus the Challenger disaster wasn't a disaster. See the problem?
