• InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Considering I was unmanned, and there wasn’t really any damage that seems extreme.

    I mean this is the same guy whos been selling self-driving cars for the last decade that constantly warn you to never let them self-drive.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not as much as you might think. Space launch rockets don’t carry a lot of extra fuel beyond what’s absolutely needed. Even propulsively landed rockets are almost empty.

      If you want to be outraged, look at how much carbon dioxide is produced during ascent.

    • Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most rockets crash into the ocean with all their contents on purpose. This one flew 23 times before finally shitting the bed on this landing.

      • Morphit @feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Plus it did land on the barge. Most of the debris should be there, though the remaining fuel would have mainly gone overboard. Probably the flight termination explosives also.

      • wabafee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s impressive, I do wonder if they have some estimated lifespan for each rocket or how many times it’s reusable. Unless they intend to just keep using it with minimal to no maintenance at all. Which I guess would eventually lead to this.

        • Steve@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Yea the previous goal was 10 flights, now the goal is send it until something breaks.

          Big advantage of having a built in customer (starlink)

        • lefty7283@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Iirc the original goal was ‘at least 10’ but maybe up to 100 flights for a booster. No way to really know without flying them a lot

    • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pretty much just kerosene. So not the best, but not horrible. It just uses LOX and RP-1 (highly refined kerosene) for fuel.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        What I get for saying something without googling first. I was expecting the hypergolic fueled mess of older rockets, but this is just a mess, but like, not THAT bad of a mess.

        It’s me, I’m the boomer.

    • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Can you explain how a booster that flew 23 times is a loss when no other companies are doing it? I don’t like Musk but people need to separate their views of him from SpaceX

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      The rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and got all 21 Starlink internet satellites to orbit. But the first-stage booster fell over in a fireball moments after landing on an ocean platform, the first such accident in years. It was the 23rd time this particular booster had launched, a recycling record for SpaceX.

      Shit happens.

      • corsicanguppy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        a recycling record for SpaceX.

        The article writes “a recycling record for the entire fucking world” a little funny.