Preferences

inglor_cz parent
An alternative explanation is that they are trying to push the design of Starship to its limits.

All the failures have happened with Starship v2, where the ambition is to put 100 tons to Low Earth Orbit. The previous design, Starship v1, was only (theoretically) capable of lifting 80 tons.

20 tons is a huge difference, basically what Falcon 9 can lift when launched in expendable mode.


LorenPechtel
But this was an explosion on the pad. Something leaked or something broke while not under flight stress.

We also have that Falcon 9 that blew in space due to a leak.

I think they're skimping on quality control.

inglor_cz OP
This is what I have read so far:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1lfayba/em_update_o...

So yeah, a QC problem, it seems.

bluescrn
With this one, given the seething hatred for Musk these days, I wouldn't rule out sabotage.

It's not the most likely cause, but in a world where people have been torching Tesla dealerships, I'm sure there's a lot of people now who really want to see Starship fail.

FireBeyond
I think you're drawing a VERY long bow here. That's a long hustle, to work in a field where you'd get to be an intimate part of the launch control process at a company that is going to be very selective on who it hires because it can be, security clearances, and then be able to do this.

No, it's rocketry. Sometimes things go boom when they're that volatile to begin with.

EdwardDiego
Sabotage of a SpaceX rocket, on their own pad?

Long bow bro.

This item has no comments currently.