That sure helped the environment!
Quick! Buy another BEV to help save the planet.
Doesn’t have to be a BEV, anything with a battery will do!
My wife once experienced a sudden unexpected deceleration event resulting in rearrangement of auto parts…
It’s more likely that the Flight Termination System (FTS) was activated automatically due to loss of telemetry, as there was quite a gap between the progressive loss of engines (down to one when telemetry lost) and the “boom”.
RUDs Happen. Quick! Someone go raid the cup on Elon’s nightstand so we can build another one.
Like Edison, Elon just discovered another way NOT to build a spaceship.
JUMPIN’ JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!!! Reminds me of a saying from my years in public affairs. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
We are not idiots. So much hysterical BS doublespeak on this one. An explosion is an “unscheduled disassembly,” “success comes from what we learn” and 'today’s flight will help us improve Starship’s reliability.” It better, for what our govt. contracts pay for it.
Then instead of waiting for the investigation, Musk speculates it was a fuel or ox leak. I’m no bilionaire or aerospace engineer, but I could have taken a wild stab at that.
FAA’s actions are equally as stupid. Delays of up to an hour due to the incident at two airports for “dangerous area for falling debris of rocket Starship?” How long does it take for junk to burn up and fall to the ground?
2 replies
It was at a very high altitude when it…dissasembled. Bits and pieces take a while taking from that altitude.
Oh dang, guys. This thing didn’t blow up.
We got it all wrong! There was no “unscheduled disassembly” either. It was just a completely safe and well executed mission that fortunately mis-happened “outside of the environment”.
No. No cardboard. No cardboard derivatives. Nothing ordered from TEMU. Not even a product from DJI. At NO POINT was there any risk or damage to mother nature or the environment.
Maybe the front fell off? (Click the link for amusement purposes, I promise - it only goes to Youtube!)
1 reply
Very misleading headline. The booster performed nearly perfectly (one Raptor didn’t light during boost back burn but did during terminal burn), returned to launch site and was caught without problems. The ship got through maybe two thirds of planned burn before starting to lose engines. Disappointing, but several more ships are nearly complete at Boca Chica along with more boosters. The problems will be solved and they will fly again soon.
I’m having trouble with the first sentence in your second paragraph.
Do you seriously think Elon didn’t consult with his engineers who looked at the telemetry and on board video before making his statement about the likely cause of the problem?
Here’s another link of examples of completely safe and well executed missions. The only difference, is the missions depicted in this link, were designed without the expectation of RUD.
The Right Stuff | 30th Anniversary - Failed Launches | Warner Bros. Entertainment
Where have you been? “Unscheduled rapid disassembly” is one of Elon’s early and more amusing toss offs in referring to his go fast and break things development philosophy.
“With a test like this, success comes from what we learn…”
Success can also come from not making bad mistakes. We may never hear the truth but was there a leak prior to launch that was not detected? Were there appropriate sensors in that area (if they exist). This was the first version of the second generation Starship and did SpaceX adequately verify the changes for problem areas.
Starship simply executed an external fuel burn.
The amusing term that Musk came up with beginning with the first failed launch of the Starship is RUD or Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly. There have been several RUDs of the SpaceX Starship heavy lift rocket all occurring shortly after liftoff downrange.
2 replies
It’s amazing the number of folks that don’t get or appreciate sarcasm or self-deprecating humor. RUD is right up there with an aircraft engine having an out of cowling experience.
Yeah, in the software business we called it “Rapid Prototyping”. The idea was to cobble together enough code to get the right output, for the most part. The classical method, harking back to the days of overnight turnarounds, was to painstakingly code for every conceivable possibility, and then throw every inconceivable form of bad data at it, before releasing it to production.
The only advantage of RP was that it got you a piece of code that would handle the 90-percentile data it would encounter. You could then foist the problem off on the anal-retentive Test&Validation geeks, who, it was hoped, would identify and mitigate the outlier cases. Unfortunately, in nearly all the shops doing RP, they didn’t actually have anyone doing T&V, so by default the code ended up in production. This meant that when an unforeseen combination of factors aligned, there was a very public crash.
NASA used the classical development model, and even then there were notable tragedies. (Frozen O-rings in Florida, really?). It should take a long time before any vehicle designed to the Musk philosophy is allowed to carry humans. Too many unknown unknowns.
The Yucatan blast that was an extinction event for most animals is scientific evidence the earth is in charge. It recovered nicely, yes?
Vostok ice core samples also dictate that the climate “crisis” is a monetary hoax.
The samples say temperature started rising THEN CO2 started rising.