Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad.
The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.
Like you say, nobody is making this explosion out to be a deadly emergency but it also probably doesn’t inspire confidence when the company fails so much more often than it succeeds. Starship engines have been “unexpectedly” exploding for years.
I don’t think exploding was part of the test. I don’t think being investigated by the FAA in 2020 for failure to listen to warnings about unintended shockwave damage was part of their tests. I don’t think losing an entire rocket to a booster explosion last year was part of the test.
I think their tests are throwing things at the stainless steel wall and hoping it sticks.
I don’t know how frequent it is, but the important point is the attitude that test failures can be ok. I don’t know if this one is, but yes there’s a pattern ….
Instead of being so risk averse that you take years and billions extra doing your best to create one of a kind hardware trying be perfect (NASA/Boeing), SpaceX builds many copies, iterate, test frequently, learn from failures. This approach seemed to have worked extremely well for previous rockets, so I’m still cheering them on.
Even just consider this test - the fact that they’re trying to build a rocket engine every week with the goal of automating the process well enough to have high confidence in them, can test it without the rocket, can build a rocket and attach engines later, can use a rocket and replace a failed engine. If this modular approach comes together this is huge!
…what? SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA. US tax payers have had to cough up billions of dollars for seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to at least be able to get to space somehow in the meantime.
Iterating and failing is okay, but SpaceX has neither been faster nor cheaper in doing so than NASA’s original moon landing program.
Okay? It was on a test stand. That’s what test stands are for. Isn’t stuff like this almost a weekly occurrence for them?
Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad.
The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.
Like you say, nobody is making this explosion out to be a deadly emergency but it also probably doesn’t inspire confidence when the company fails so much more often than it succeeds. Starship engines have been “unexpectedly” exploding for years.
Fails more often than it succeeds? That’s… not even close to accurate.
They’ve already had more than 50 successful missions this year.
Testing doesn’t count as a failure, it counts as test data.
I don’t think exploding was part of the test. I don’t think being investigated by the FAA in 2020 for failure to listen to warnings about unintended shockwave damage was part of their tests. I don’t think losing an entire rocket to a booster explosion last year was part of the test.
I think their tests are throwing things at the stainless steel wall and hoping it sticks.
I don’t know how frequent it is, but the important point is the attitude that test failures can be ok. I don’t know if this one is, but yes there’s a pattern ….
Instead of being so risk averse that you take years and billions extra doing your best to create one of a kind hardware trying be perfect (NASA/Boeing), SpaceX builds many copies, iterate, test frequently, learn from failures. This approach seemed to have worked extremely well for previous rockets, so I’m still cheering them on.
Even just consider this test - the fact that they’re trying to build a rocket engine every week with the goal of automating the process well enough to have high confidence in them, can test it without the rocket, can build a rocket and attach engines later, can use a rocket and replace a failed engine. If this modular approach comes together this is huge!
…what? SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA. US tax payers have had to cough up billions of dollars for seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to at least be able to get to space somehow in the meantime.
Iterating and failing is okay, but SpaceX has neither been faster nor cheaper in doing so than NASA’s original moon landing program.
Test Pad, it was on a test pad.
The reason they use test pads is that iPads are too expensive.
I imagine they don’t necessarily always fail explosively. I don’t know how often this stuff actually happens.
A year or two they were blowing one up every month or so. They’ve become more rare recently as they’ve dialed in the engines.