An always cool Falcon 9 launch (and other Space News)

[CarlBar]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Which one?  The one where he was the guest lecturer talking about Artemis, or one of his other space ones?

 

[wanderingfool2]

21 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Attached the transcript.

 

I mean it's a nice enough talk, but I think a general issue about his talk was that it lacked a lot of the insight of someone who has been following the program itself...i.e. prior to being invited to talk he wasn't aware of they were doing the landing the way they were etc.  He didn't even realize they would be refilling Starship in orbit, etc.

 

One of the things as well, he goes on what is publicly stated by the government officials; while internally I'm betting they know a lot more but just aren't releasing it (like the meeting updates he alludes to were all once classified...like we know that SpaceX actually has an estimate of worst case vs best case scenarios, but ultimately that is a closely guarded secret and still changing as they work out optimizations or changes in design to the spacecraft)

 

While I do find a lot of his topics interesting, in a case like this it feels like someone who has had limited time to prepare and has formed his opinions regarding it about what he could learn in a limited timeframe; while he does mention politics as well, I don't think he fully understands that without the essentially made up public announcement date there wouldn't have been that funding.

000.txt

[Uttamattamakin]

On 2/27/2024 at 10:45 AM, CarlBar said:

 

In Re Starship. 
If I were to summarize it BRIEFLY.  Again as a brief summary it cannot be a full nuanced thing.  That would be watching the video. 

He said... Starship SUX 

JUST KIDDING.  

He looked at the overall mission architecture of Artemis and was critical of how complex it is compared to Apollo.   For starters Apollo was able to get the humans and a lander to the moon on ONE rocket.    While Artemis requires TWO big complicated systems to do it.  SLS is to launch the people.  While Starship HLS is to land on the moon.    Right now the plan for Starship HLS is for it to be a specaialized lunar starship, big as it is, landing on the moon.    The problem is can they really land as depicted on the moon.  (Consider that in the last couple of months two relatively short landers both have fallen on their side after landing on the Moon)

 

Then there is the need for many launches of Starship tankers to fuel up the Starship HLS to get it to the Moon.  A problem will be propellant boil off and the Starship can't get to the moon by itself without those fueling missions.    So there are real questions of how many Launches it will take to tank up Starship HLS.  

NOw if you want to understand my attitude towards Starship you can get it by watching the video starting here. 

About 29 minutes in he really gets to it.    Starship has to successfully launch full functional HLS to orbit, and also several tankers to orbit, AND also do the DEAR MOON mission somehow... All by 2026.  Keep it real do you see that happening.  I hope it does. I really do.  

 

He's joking a bit with the rockets up in the corners here and there ... but the ones along the timeline he isn't joking about. 

 

 

 

THat is a brief summary of his video.  Please watch the whole thing if you want all the nuances it's the only way.   He's also not the only one AT ALL who sees Starship as an HLS failing.  Something which is of crucial interest to the USA. 

 

 

NOTE YES the former admin was critical of NASA and Blue Origin as well.  He thinks that Artemis as now planned should be cancelled.  Then revert to a more straightforward approach to the Moon.   As I understand the former NASA admin's plan... basically we skip this first Block of SLS and advance to the heavier versions of it that would be able to lift a lot more people and cargo to the moon. Yes yes not like Starship but SLS is flying now, it is able to get people around the Moon, now.  Artemis 1 was a unmanned test of a manable system.  

 

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/former-nasa-administrator-hates-artemis-wants-to-party-like-its-2008/

 

Quote

In Griffin’s case, he would return the country to the cozy confines of 2008, just before the era of commercial space took off and when he was at the height of his power before being removed as NASA administrator. Griffin's plan for an accelerated lunar mission, in short, calls for:

• Two launches of the Space Launch System Block II rocket
• A Centaur III upper stage
• An Orion spacecraft
• A two-stage, storable-propellant lunar lander

This architecture would support a crew of four people on the lunar surface for seven days, Griffin said. "The straightforward approach outlined here could put US-led expeditions on the Moon beginning in 2029, given bold action by Congress and expeditious decision-making and firm contractor direction by NASA," he concluded.

2029 is when the PRC is planning to land if not sooner.  

Starship and others will have a long term role ... but we have to get there.  There is no such thing as ownership in space BUT there is something close to it in the outer space treaty. One can claim a ... safety zone of reasonable size around ones assets on a body like the Moon.   Legally to land in that zone they'd have to coordinate with you... for safety. 

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/space_portal_michelle_hanlon.pdf

 

WHERE I AM COMMING FROM on all of this. 

 

If Starship does not meet the deadlines, then it has failed Artemis and in my mind that is mission fail.  

GAME OVER.   Shackelton crater belongs to the Peoples Republic of China. 

Play the March of the volunteers

  At that point getting Starship up to launch Starlink satellites is ... honestly... who cares. 

 

I don't blame him for being afraid as some people will attack. 

 

 

[Beerzerker]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:39 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

I pointed out something funny.  Come on you have to admit it is funny. 

I mean look at this thing.

  

 

What in literal hellfire is that?  LOL. 

I guess you didn't pick up on the reference I gave above and that's OK - If not, I'll solve the mystery for you here anyway and be done with it.
Besides, it's rather cool.....

[Uttamattamakin]

NASA / Intuitive machines update on the mission.  VERY successful ... even if laying on its side on the Moon. 

I get how hard it is to do space but uhm .. I hope we learn to not accept less than total success going forward.    A human lander on its side even if intact means the astronauts are doomed. There were plans if that happened to Apollo 11 to cut communications ... that was all. With a recorded soothing message hailing them as heroes from Richard Milhouse Nixon.  

 

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/moon-lander-pictured-on-its-side-with-snapped-leg/ar-BB1j3Ica

 

Quote

 

The first clear images of the Odysseus robot on the surface of the Moon have just been released.

They show the American mission lying to one side, having broken a leg on touchdown.

The spacecraft continued to work afterwards, however, sending back data about the lunar environment.

Odysseus made history last Thursday by becoming the first ever privately built vehicle to complete a soft landing on the Moon.

 

 

[manikyath]

7 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I get how hard it is to do space but uhm .. I hope we learn to not accept less than total success going forward.    A human lander on its side even if intact means the astronauts are doomed.

it landed on the moon, the mission was supposed to last 8 days, the article was written on the 6th day, at which time the craft was still operational and sending back data on the experiments.

 

the fact we've recently had two belly landings on the moon shows that perhaps we need to do more testing before we send a final product to the moon, but if the data we wanted to collect from this mission was successfully collected, the mission itself can be considered a success.

 

and while, inded, we wouldnt want a human-capable craft to fall on it's ass.. this is not human rated, it has nothing to do with anything human rated.. and is accidentially a good example of why "human rated" exists.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

NASA / Intuitive machines update on the mission.  VERY successful ... even if laying on its side on the Moon. 

I do hope you can see the hypocrisy/biases in the statement (give you have essentially said all the test runs of Starship seems to be a failure).

 

If you are going by the fact that NASA has labelled it a success as well, then you have to also concede that NASA has made similar statements about IFT-2

 

 

Lets go into the mission of IM-1 though and it's failures.

LIDAR failure - Again it's a process error that should never have happened.

Consequence - Eagle Camera wasn't able to be deployed

Other note - The LIDAR module wasn't supposed to even have been turned on before...they just got lucky that they tried using it beforehand.  If they hadn't it would have crashed into the surface completely.

 

Mission length is now greatly shorter, and data is limited.

 

Let's also put this into perspective, the IM-1 guy called the EagleCamera "wild success"...because they deployed it while tipped over.  Lets just ignore that it's having issues (who knows maybe from the fact that it was meant to be deployed prior to crash landing)

 

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

the fact we've recently had two belly landings on the moon shows that perhaps we need to do more testing before we send a final product to the moon, but if the data we wanted to collect from this mission was successfully collected, the mission itself can be considered a success.

The Japanese bellyflop is arguably one of the ones that really is a huge issue; given that the same nozzle design fell off during a prior mission...it indicates there is a fundamental issue with using a ceramic nozzle is it's currently designed.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I do hope you can see the hypocrisy/biases in the statement (give you have essentially said all the test runs of Starship seems to be a failure).

 

Calibrate your sarcasm detector. 

 

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

and while, inded, we wouldnt want a human-capable craft to fall on it's ass.. this is not human rated, it has nothing to do with anything human rated.. and is accidentially a good example of why "human rated" exists.

Precisely.  Success and failure are not binary  there can be a sliding scale.   However,  watching that update was so much of them describing their effort as success.  Like nothing went wrong.   We need to do better. We need to do a lot better if we are going to land something the size of a building on the Moon. 

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Precisely.  Success and failure are not binary  there can be a sliding scale.   However,  watching that update was so much of them describing their effort as success.  Like nothing went wrong.   We need to do better. We need to do a lot better if we are going to land something the size of a building on the Moon. 

yes, let's support the idea that the partner for HLS that NASA decided to use has a habit of doing A LOT of real world testing to avoid that their production vehicle has unforeseen bugs.. like shoddy landing gear.

[Uttamattamakin]

9 hours ago, manikyath said:

yes, let's support the idea that the partner for HLS that NASA decided to use has a habit of doing A LOT of real world testing to avoid that their production vehicle has unforeseen bugs.. like shoddy landing gear.

I would IF somehow others managed to test every part of their systems multiple times and as systems then launch and not blow up. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

as systems then launch and not blow up. 

you see.. there's where you're missing the point.. the things you're referring to here that blow up *ARE* tests.

[Uttamattamakin]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

you see.. there's where you're missing the point.. the things you're referring to here that blow up *ARE* tests.

So was the launch of Artemis I.    Artemis 1 was an uncrewed test of a crew capable system.    

[wanderingfool2]

56 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

So was the launch of Artemis I.    Artemis 1 was an uncrewed test of a crew capable system.    

Except that the SLS green-run could have potentially not been aborted by triggering, and the SLS would have been launched and eventually the safety parameters would be exceeded, the SLS would have gone into abort mode and...exploded.

 

The SLS was supposed to be based on the "old" technology as well, which has lead to years and years of delays already billions in cost overruns and honestly they shouldn't be flying it crewed on the second flight.

 

And for your whole, Starship will delay Artemis babble, the whole Artemis 2 mission was supposed to have happened like 5 years ago.

[manikyath]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

So was the launch of Artemis I.    Artemis 1 was an uncrewed test of a crew capable system.    

artemis 1 carried a payload though.

 

it would have been a loss to FTS that, starship is currently flying completely empty.

[Uttamattamakin]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except that the SLS green-run could have potentially not been aborted by triggering, and the SLS would have been launched and eventually the safety parameters would be exceeded, the SLS would have gone into abort mode and...exploded.

 

The SLS was supposed to be based on the "old" technology as well, which has lead to years and years of delays already billions in cost overruns and honestly they shouldn't be flying it crewed on the second flight.

 

And for your whole, Starship will delay Artemis babble, the whole Artemis 2 mission was supposed to have happened like 5 years ago.

It went around the Moon and could've carried people there.  Artemis II will do this soon enough.   Hopefully starship will catch up and solve the problem of needng 6-12 launches to get one to the moon.  (Watch the video in the post above). 

9 hours ago, manikyath said:

artemis 1 carried a payload though.

 

it would have been a loss to FTS that, starship is currently flying completely empty.

Starship needs to get to space without blowing up first.  Then we can compare them.  Until then Starship is the system that needs to prove itself.   

Youtube has been feeding me videos about people climbing Everest and other tall mountains lately.  Starship is like a person who has never climbed the mountain all the way, has failed every time, telling those who have that they are doing it wrong. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It went around the Moon and could've carried people there.  Artemis II will do this soon enough

Again, you are either arguing in bad faith, or seriously need to be schooled on reading/logic

 

Do you know why Artemis 2 was delayed?  Orion capsule delayed the launch of that due to safety concerns, because Orion exceeded the safety threshold required.

 

Do you not understand what I am referring to either.  The green run, which happened to trip the safety parameters DID NOT necessarily have to trip those safety parameters.  If that was the case, the SLS would have aborted.

 

Do you not understand that, or are you going to conflate luck that things were caught then.

 

e.g. Luck is the reason IM-1 didn't end a complete failure, and AFTER the luck; skill and abandoning of missions is what kept it from becoming a complete failure

Luck with the probabilities is what kept SLS's problem becoming apparent during the green run.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Youtube has been feeding me videos about people climbing Everest and other tall mountains lately.  Starship is like a person who has never climbed the mountain all the way, has failed every time, telling those who have that they are doing it wrong. 

And you are the guy from the viral clip of lecturing a PGA woman that she is doing it wrong; and then stating the [there you go] when you perceive what you said is true.

 

Everyone here, but you, is saying that SpaceX is using a DIFFERENT testing methodology.

 

Or if you want to keep to climbing analogies

 

You are the one who pays multiple sherpas to carry all your equipment, setup camp , and help you climb the mount...then telling someone who is trying a solo climb that they are being a failure because they never made it and "look I've climbed it" smugness.

 

The simple fact you seem to not get is that things such as testing to it's limits IS part of the SpaceX testing methodology.  They sacrifice vessels for the insight into the vehicle and note where they need to improve/change.  There is nothing wrong with this methodology like you keep implying.

 

Again what you fail to see:

IFT-1, primary goal lift off the pad and effectively test to see if their concept would hold [even pre-flight they though there was a high probability of not even leaving the pad]  So yes, it ended in explosion but it wasn't a failure.  The only real failure on IFT-1 was that they discovered the ground beneath the pad compresses more than the simulations indicated (again from the prior topic, had they had your "flame trench" they would have had the same issue, except this time they would have wasted multiple months building that first flame trench only to have it destroyed).

 

You can easily tell this because they knew at least 2 engines were not going to light prior, and then just prior to ignition they knew 4 would be offline (which was just enough to still attempt)

 

IFT-2, again it was an exploratory testing.  The stretch goal was to effectively de-orbit it and practice the maneuver, but the primary goal was assessing the changes made and achieve hot-staging (and observe the effects of hot-staging).  It did so, and they also learned additional information.  IFT-2 wasn't a failure and the explosion wasn't like you keep implying really bad.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It went around the Moon and could've carried people there.  Artemis II will do this soon enough.   Hopefully starship will catch up and solve the problem of needng 6-12 launches to get one to the moon.  (Watch the video in the post above). 

Again, you are showing the lack of reading comprehension, or did you not notice I posted a transcript and already posted my thoughts on this PRIOR to your post.

 

The true number of Starships launches needed won't be know until real world testing is done and finalizations happen.  To achieve a moon landing it could be done in as little as 4 launches but depending could be a lot more.  Again, Dustin's video is good but it's clear he had limited knowledge prior to this and thus hasn't followed along with some of the reasonings behind it.

 

I don't think he recognizes that the way he was suggesting would never get the funding approval [and wouldn't work].

 

SLS is currently has a limit to their building capacity, which instantly makes missions requiring multiple SLS launches in a year infeasible (that was never discussed).  It wasn't discussed that even if SLS could be built with enough cadence it would cost multiple times more.

What isn't discussed is that SLS is not practical if you are planning decades of moon exploration (again cost)

The current SLS variant doesn't have the payload capacity to bring most of the other solutions for HLS to the moon.

 

SLS had multiple fuel leaks during fueling (where an errant spark could have created serious issues)

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Starship needs to get to space without blowing up first.  Then we can compare them.  Until then Starship is the system that needs to prove itself.   

EXACTLY MY POINT

 

you're the one making a fuss of starship's flight tests as compared to the one flight SLS has done, literally everyone else here is trying to tell you that one was a flight with a payload, and the other is a test of an unfinished prototype vehicle that was not necessarily expected to make it to space in the first place. even if the flight with a payload was a "test" for future generations of the craft, it was intended to make it to it's destination. we're at a stage of starship where half of the flight plan is "optional, if all else goes as expected". this very point is what wev'e been trying to make you understand, and now you somehow assume that this newly gained knowledge is somehow supporting your point?

 

 

oh, and i will refresh you on this one, because for as much as you shout about N1, getting called out on it leads to silence, so i must assume you have nothing to back up your claims then.

On 2/27/2024 at 10:21 AM, manikyath said:

please, go fish up the history on N1 and explain how their process was similar to starship. i've already done so to explain how different they are, are you just gonna sit here shouting or are you gonna come with any facts to support this statement?

 

[Uttamattamakin]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

EXACTLY MY POINT

 

you're the one making a fuss of starship's flight tests as compared to the one flight SLS has done, literally everyone else here is trying to tell you that one was a flight with a payload, and the other is a test of an unfinished prototype vehicle that was not necessarily expected to make it to space in the first place. 

That mission was ALSO a test.  For a spacecraft intended to be manned going up without people IS a test. 

 

THAT's what I am telling everyone else here.  Truth is not a democracy.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-i/#:~:text=Artemis I was the first integrated flight test,at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral%2C Florida.

 

See BELOW. 

 

 

So are you and @wanderingfool2 going to admit you are wrong now?  Artemis 1 was a test it passed  first shot.  Starship has failed to get to orbit twice and is going to cause Artemis III mission fail unless they get their act together.   

 

 

I get it a lot of you are Musk fans.  He's a great entrepreneur, and does and tries to do wonderful innovative things.  The thing is an innovation that detonates is not innovation it's just a high explosive until it stops exploding. 

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

So are you and @wanderingfool2 going to admit you are wrong now?  Artemis 1 was a test it passed  first shot.  Starship has failed to get to orbit twice and is going to cause Artemis III mission fail unless they get their act together.   

The sad thing is you genuinely believe what you are saying, which is just pathetically sad because you claim you are part of a scientific mission involving space.

 

Honestly, go to your superiors and show them this thread.

 

What do you think we are wrong about?  Just because you are being ignorant to the fact there are different types of tests, and different test parameters meant for the tests.

 

Seriously, stop being so dumb.  You are the only who seems to think that Starship's success/failure was to reach orbit.  For the sake of your lack of intelligence note that even the stretch goal WAS SUB-ORBITAL.

 

IFT-1 - Success because the goal WAS TO leave the pad.  It was to gauge the performance, it was to figure out how everything behaved together.  Yes it didn't reach it's final stretch goal

 

IFT-2 - Success because it was to test the changes made, and to test out hotstaging [all engines remained lit for full duration on booster until hot staging] and the second stage showed it wasn't damaged by the hotstaging.  [They were using hydraulic controls as well, the same ones that caused an issue on the booster...because it eventually caught fire, likely similar things happened here when the oxygen dump happened...it wasn't implemented because they had the ship ready and would have to delay otherwise].

 

So I'm not admitting I'm wrong simply because I'm not wrong, you are just being to thick to realize that Starship, a non-finalized design test phase, does not need to make it to orbit to be a successful test.

 

Again, what you fail to realize, there is a difference between a test article that you don't expect to make it to orbit and is an exploratory test vs SLS which was carrying a payload.

 

SLS sacrifices time and money to effectively accomplish carrying a payload on it's first attempt.

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That mission was ALSO a test.  For a spacecraft intended to be manned going up without people IS a test. 

how are you THIS close minded?

 

12 hours ago, manikyath said:

... one was a flight with a payload, ... it was intended to make it to it's destination.

 

12 hours ago, manikyath said:

 and the other is a test of an unfinished prototype vehicle that was not necessarily expected to make it to space in the first place ... we're at a stage of starship where half of the flight plan is "optional, if all else goes as expected".

 

in this regard, the definition of "test flight" used means that it was literally never expected for it to not blow up. the timing and reason may have been different based on what did and did not go well, but past the stage where we got with IFT-2 literally the only "mission" for the crafts was "plunge into the ocean roughly here".

 

essentially, let's put it like this;

 

artemis was management test-driving the model before it goes on sale.

IFT-2 is those ncap safety tests where they plunge the car into a wall to see how well it performs.

 

both are "tests", both are very different, at very different stages of development. or in your words:

16 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then we can compare them.  Until then Starship is the system that needs to prove itself.   

you're the one comparing prototypes "getting slammed into the wall" to an essentially finished rocket on a "test drive". yes, starshop needs to prove itself.. that is what they are actively working on, checking off every step of a rocket launch one by one, in a very "publicly visible" way, as opposed to NASA's "behind the scenes" way.

 

or to put it a way i've stated before in this thread.. the only reason you're angry, is because you're aware of them developing it. if you didnt SEE it blowing up, you wouldnt have cared.

[Uttamattamakin]

@wanderingfool2 @manikyath You both just told me how Artemis I was not a test and so it not blowing up is not impressive.    

 

Ok fine you win.  Starship is great and wonderful and even if it catastrophically detonates that's success. 

 

I swear sometimes it feels like discussing if AMD or Nvidia make better GPU's. 

[manikyath]

4 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

You both just told me how Artemis I was not a test and so it not blowing up is not impressive.    

 

Ok fine you win.  Starship is great and wonderful and even if it catastrophically detonates that's success. 

not what we said, never what we said, will never be what we said... the "impressive-ness" of artemis was never the point... even the "impressive-ness" of starship was never the point.. the point is that the real world is nuanced in a lot of ways, and SpaceX's testing methodology 'to the untrained eye' goes quite far into the weird side of nuance. yes, IFT2 blew up, but all major datapoints of the test flight were collected, if the booster didnt choke on it's flip it would've just plunged into the ocean closer to the coast, and if starship didnt have the issue with fuel dump going wrong it would've just smashed into the ocean later.

 

in the real practical world theory doesnt always apply in the same way, and things arent always black and white.

 

and yet... the best you got is trying to take 13 pages of explanations that there's at least a few shades of grey to consider, and you try and turn them into black and white like an 80s document scanner.

[HenrySalayne]

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That mission was ALSO a test.  For a spacecraft intended to be manned going up without people IS a test. 

 

THAT's what I am telling everyone else here.  Truth is not a democracy.

Guess what? There are also tests with the sole purpose of blowing up the spacecraft. They are ALSO tests.

It seems like different tests have different objectives and success criteria.

But that's probably beyond the scope of your failed truth autocracy.

[wanderingfool2]

8 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

@wanderingfool2 @manikyath You both just told me how Artemis I was not a test and so it not blowing up is not impressive.    

 

Ok fine you win.  Starship is great and wonderful and even if it catastrophically detonates that's success. 

WE DIDN'T SAY THAT; This is greatly disturbing if your claims of working on on LISA are true, and your other claims are corrected because someone as close minded/biased as you should not be in that kind of position.  Again, send this thread to your supervisors and see if they agree.

 

My statement is, and has always been that the SLS has approached things differently in sacrificing time and money to get to where it is.  I honestly don't know how you can be so clueless on interpreting a statement like this (anyone who has worked or even dabbled in basic level engineering/sciences/computer sciences/maths knows this).

 

SLS would have been a failure IF it blew up because it was effectively a release candidate; Starship is like the beta/alpha candidates.  The key being that SLS was effectively supposed to be in it's final form, the one that is supposed to fly the missions state of testing.  Starship is not, to suggest otherwise is just showing your ineptitude for critical thinking (actually even basic level thinking).

 

You test a release candidate for issues, BUT at that stage a RC should not result in any major defects being found.  It's why blowing up would be a failure at that stage.

 

I did mention that the SLS actually was lucky though it didn't get aborted during flight, because their green run found an issue (but that issue wasn't necessarily going to come up in a green run).  So that meant SLS got a bit lucky in terms of having the issue spotted before it lead to a failure.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Guess what? There are also tests with the sole purpose of blowing up the spacecraft. They are ALSO tests.

It seems like different tests have different objectives and success criteria.

But that's probably beyond the scope of your failed truth autocracy.

The purpose of those IFTs was not to blow up the rocket.  LOL. 

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-orbital-test-flight-may-2022-target

 

Quote

The Super Heavy booster will splash down in the Gulf of Mexico shortly after liftoff. The Starship upper stage, meanwhile, will power its way to orbit, circle our planet once, and splash down in the Pacific Ocean, near the Hawaiian island of Kauai, if all goes according to plan.

Where is blowing up in all of that?

 

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

WE DIDN'T SAY THAT; This is greatly disturbing i

Yeah you did multiple times say that Artemis 1 had a payload and was a working system and not a test while starship is a test.  

They both did test.  NASA's rocket didn't explode while Musks did.  

What is disturbing is how so many people are such big fans of someone that they can't be honest about what they are doing.  He's not going to marry you.