When do they start calling for volunteer astronauts, with a 1/3 chance of success?
ronaldo8,
Dec 11, 2:42am
Did you not read the story?
tony9,
Dec 11, 2:51am
Yes, I have been following SpaceX closely.
It blew up near landing, it was not supposed to do that.
apollo11,
Dec 11, 3:21am
I thought it was bloody amazing. They didn't expect it to go perfectly either, but were mainly collecting data. It was interesting watching those raptor engines gimbolling wildly as they tried to compensate for the engine that failed.
ronaldo8,
Dec 11, 8:00am
To elaborate. I see absolutely no connection between what they see as a successful test and your ramble about wiggling connectors. Hence my question as to if you'd even read the article, there is a no similarity whatsoever in methodology.
marte,
Dec 11, 8:12am
It's a test, so yes it is. That's the reason of the test, the test is to get results. The result? It blew up.
bitsnpieces2020,
Dec 12, 7:49am
so if it didn't explode it'd be a failure? LOL.
exwesty,
Dec 12, 10:29am
It was a RUD. Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
marte,
Oct 11, 7:59am
They learnt stuff, which was the main point in doing it. From what I read it was cashed by 'low pressures in the fuel tank' & given that Earths atmospheric pressure is greater than Mars is, on Mars it would have worked.
It's quite impressive that they could even try to land a rocket back on Earth in a reverse of its launching. NASA went the ( I think it was a bad idea ) way of using a reusable space shuttle & that set back exploration by a about a decade, even to the point of America having to rely on the Russians.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.