Finally, people are starting to ask the tough questions about the SpaceX development of Starship:
Twin Test Flight Explosions Show SpaceX Is No Longer Defying Gravity.
Consecutive losses of the Starship rocket suggest that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as its fans may think.
…
*But these two Starship explosions were a step backward in SpaceX’s development process, as the flights could not even repeat the successes of earlier test flights, and they perhaps show that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as fans of the company sometimes like to think.*
*“There’s this persona that has built up around SpaceX, but you’re starting to see that they’re human, too,” said Daniel Dumbacher, a former NASA official who is now a professor of engineering practice at Purdue University and chief innovation and strategy officer for Special Aerospace Services, an engineering and manufacturing company whose customers include NASA, the United States Space Force and some of SpaceX’s competitors.*
Wayleaper on
Wouldn’t exactly consider myself a “fan,” but what Space X and other private space programs are doing is pretty awesome. It’s important to point out that these “fails” are accounted for and in a way, planned. Space X has adopted a rapid development and testing approach that agencies like NASA just can’t afford. They don’t have to move as slowly and as calculated as tax funded programs. Every launch, “successful” or not, is a wealth of knowledge.
DNathanHilliard on
I remember when they were blowing up Falcon rockets. Now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world. Stuff blows up in the rocket business until they get it right. It’s just part of the process.
Pilfercate on
Last one was a fire and this one was a lack of fire(engines)? It’s pretty disingenuous for them to present this in such an uninformed manner and be upset that the engineers are not infallible. It’s a private company iterating at least 5X more quickly than NASA ever could and still catching performative hit pieces when they don’t fix problems before they happen. They’re on their third raptor engine design if anyone wants to point to previous engine outs.
Sprocket_Scientist on
We already had Boeing to “rapidly disassemble” government subsidies. Did we really need to scale that up into SpaceX?
Beahner on
Eh….this is what’s going to come. The guy at the top of this company is such a complete asshat at this point that what SpaceX has always done to innovate like crazy ( and often led to blowing up craft) will now be questioned hard.
I just really wish he has gotten away from this company a few years ago. They would have continued to be just fine and this kind of stuff wouldn’t smack them now.
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
9 Comments
Finally, people are starting to ask the tough questions about the SpaceX development of Starship:
Twin Test Flight Explosions Show SpaceX Is No Longer Defying Gravity.
Consecutive losses of the Starship rocket suggest that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as its fans may think.
…
*But these two Starship explosions were a step backward in SpaceX’s development process, as the flights could not even repeat the successes of earlier test flights, and they perhaps show that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as fans of the company sometimes like to think.*
*“There’s this persona that has built up around SpaceX, but you’re starting to see that they’re human, too,” said Daniel Dumbacher, a former NASA official who is now a professor of engineering practice at Purdue University and chief innovation and strategy officer for Special Aerospace Services, an engineering and manufacturing company whose customers include NASA, the United States Space Force and some of SpaceX’s competitors.*
Wouldn’t exactly consider myself a “fan,” but what Space X and other private space programs are doing is pretty awesome. It’s important to point out that these “fails” are accounted for and in a way, planned. Space X has adopted a rapid development and testing approach that agencies like NASA just can’t afford. They don’t have to move as slowly and as calculated as tax funded programs. Every launch, “successful” or not, is a wealth of knowledge.
I remember when they were blowing up Falcon rockets. Now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world. Stuff blows up in the rocket business until they get it right. It’s just part of the process.
Last one was a fire and this one was a lack of fire(engines)? It’s pretty disingenuous for them to present this in such an uninformed manner and be upset that the engineers are not infallible. It’s a private company iterating at least 5X more quickly than NASA ever could and still catching performative hit pieces when they don’t fix problems before they happen. They’re on their third raptor engine design if anyone wants to point to previous engine outs.
We already had Boeing to “rapidly disassemble” government subsidies. Did we really need to scale that up into SpaceX?
Eh….this is what’s going to come. The guy at the top of this company is such a complete asshat at this point that what SpaceX has always done to innovate like crazy ( and often led to blowing up craft) will now be questioned hard.
I just really wish he has gotten away from this company a few years ago. They would have continued to be just fine and this kind of stuff wouldn’t smack them now.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrocbr “Last usage”)|US Department of Defense|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrpqkf “Last usage”)|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[LOX](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrphxw “Last usage”)|Liquid Oxygen|
|[RUD](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrgd5f “Last usage”)|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unintended Disassembly|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrph7h “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1j6sqxo/stub/mgrozxd “Last usage”)|SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^([Thread #11139 for this sub, first seen 8th Mar 2025, 23:56])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
What are the chances of internal sabotage on this test flight?
Surely, there are some decent people in the company right? Who knows, maybe one of the reliability engineers’ grandma was an Auschwitz survivor. 😳
Wonder how much of these recent issues could be related to engineers possibly having left SX due to recent events?