Starship IFT-4 launch today (June 6) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 07:38:24 am
content: Test flight 4 today at ~7-20 a.m. CT (13-20 GMT) (stream supposedly starts 6-30 CT/ 12-30 GMT). Will in blend... I mean will it land? Don't try watching it on youtube unless it's a 3rd party stream with their own video. It's X exclusive and youtube will be full of crypto scam streams.https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OwxWYzDXjWGQ

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 12:19:15 pm
content: Stream is livehttps://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OwxWYzDXjWGQLaunch in 30 minutes, (7-50a.m. CT, 12-50 GMT)Alternative view from Everyday Astronaut

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 01:48:19 pm
content: Nice, thanks!Looks like it is losing a lot of mass, there are many sparks.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 02:14:10 pm
content: This Starship was a fighter, soft landed in the ocean despite some extra holes.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 02:19:33 pm
content: If I remember correctly, Elon said that the location of the flaps needs to move back a bit and is not very optimal in the current design.So flap damage is not all that unexpected on V1. I think the hinge join is just too close to the hot plasma on V1.Bring on V2 !!!

author: Per Hansson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 04:10:15 pm
content: Watched Tim Dodd's stream, what an absolutely amazing performance, would be amazing if there are some external shots of the Starship splashdown!You could see it hovered even with the damaged view of the camera, in all I think the camera had the most amazing performance thoughAlso this comment on Dave's stream is so valid I wish I could upvote it more than once!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 04:21:26 pm
content: ^I watched Thunderf00t's stream a little bit, so much disappointment after every of his cheering failure prediction failed to materialize. Now he is made fun of in the comments.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 04:23:02 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 06, 2024, 02:19:33 pmLondoners probably consider that to be in poor taste.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:22:54 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 06, 2024, 04:23:02 pmThe V2 was a flop. It exploded on impact, rather than proximity, and left only very localised damage. It had a shock value, because it came in supersonic, so it suddenly went bang without any warning. It was the V1 that caused serious damage, and also scared people with its loud characteristic noise as it approached. Pop, pop, pop, pop, silence, wait, bang, ah, someone else caught it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:24:47 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 06, 2024, 04:21:26 pmWhen Thunderf00t was made, they started with the sneer, and built the rest of him around that.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 07:23:29 pm
content: Burning of the control fin was nice and spectacular!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 07:53:25 pm
content: Quote from: MT on June 06, 2024, 07:23:29 pmIt looks like they made a really good job of the control software. They were lucky the plasma didn't cut through anything vital on the fins, but they were clearly badly damaged, and the control system appeared to compensate for that very well.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 10:37:35 pm
content: I guess it's a badge of honor

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 11:12:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 06, 2024, 07:53:25 pmWas more than one fin burned? Wouldn't surprise me, it's probably a symmetrical fin placement, but I only saw the one fin burning.Don't forget that one of the 33 booster-stage raptor engines failed to light. I don't know if there was any specific control system adjustment, or if the system just automatically compensated for it, but it demonstrates the effective redundancy and ability to perform properly under less-than perfect conditions.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 11:17:11 pm
content: Flap burn was actually predicted.https://x.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1798839719964618998

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 11:19:35 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on June 06, 2024, 11:12:04 pmOne booster engine failed going up, and one failed in the final burn before landing. They have more engines than necessary for redundancy, so this is something the control system is definitely built to allow for. You can't build a ship to be launched hundreds of times a year carrying people without providing for operation with some engine outages.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:35:11 am
content: Another kudo for the control software. The flap lost maybe 20% of its area, and everything worked. This flight also validated the choice of stainless steel. Aluminum would never have made it through this.

author: Per Hansson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 08:32:28 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 06, 2024, 11:17:11 pmYes it was mentioned by Tim in the stream but he didn't want to elaborate too much about his upcoming video (it needs ITAR compliance authorization before being published obviously) so thank you for this link because I would have missed it!

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 10:55:45 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 06, 2024, 11:17:11 pmYeah, even before that I remember hearing about how hard it is to thermally shield a movable joint like the flaps.The reentry gas wants to find any crack and cut it open like a plasma cutter.The plan to move the hinge part upwards makes a lot of sense. Get the hinge part out of the plasma stream. The flaps themselves have to extend out into it but the hinge doesnt.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:28:58 pm
content: I wonder if the flaps will ultimately end up as consumable parts - give them enough area to survive entry but recycle and replace them for each flight? Probably expensive, but may end up being cheaper than making them out of solid titanium or something like that.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:29:50 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 06, 2024, 05:24:47 pmNever seen him sneer. Seen him be pompous and condescending yes, but not sneering.Hard to see how any of this Starship nonsense can be seen as a success, given what was promised. Or don't those promises matter?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:32:41 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 12:28:58 pmSince the current design seemed to pass through peak heating and peak aerodynamic pressure (judging by the verbal announcements during the descent) before it started to obviously degrade I imagine they will be looking for some kind of deflection arrangement, to minimise the plasma passingthrough the gap before solutions that makes more things expendable.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:33:03 pm
content: I don't think Thunderf00t actually believes what he says about SpaceX, he's just made himself a fanbase that can be milked like a cash cow and now he has to play the role his audience expects in order to get paid.His audience wants drama and rants about why things, that everyone else likes, are actually fake, fraud or wrong.It's one of the worst parts of the human brain, how it can be drawn to seek balance. When you see something that other people like and want to hate it because by doing so you feel it restores balance and that feels good.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:41:05 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 07, 2024, 12:29:50 pmWe see a lot of what is going on in the development process for Starship, in a way that is rare. If you've ever been involved from the inside on a big system development you'll realise they all look pretty ugly, until things start to come together. Even things which are hard to hide, like test flights of a new aircraft design, aren't usually very open at all. A new Boeing or Airbus flying for the first time generally looks very much like the final product that ships. If you know anything about the development program from the inside you'll know the first flight is typically with a plane that's so heavy it couldn't carry many passengers, and radical weight reduction work happens during the test phase to get the aircraft close to the load carrying performance that was promised.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:45:43 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 06, 2024, 11:17:11 pmIt's obvious by design, but bad engineering if you need to have parts of a space tincan to burn up during reentry.Else you could just as well cut out that surface area during manufacturing.Wasnt Musks whole rocket ideas reusability of tincans and not opsidaisy right to repair. (besides the real agenda of being one of many vehicles to transfer taxpayers wealth into private corporate hands)Sure as hell Musk forgot to tell everyone in the control room/hired audience his predictions when they become aware of the melting and in horror expressed the sight at 14:40 in the fin burn video.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:46:44 pm
content: Promises matter. But really big promises deserve some slack. If I promise to make you a billionaire in five years, and it takes eight do you rate that as a complete and utter failure? Especially if you were at two hundred million at the five year point?Becoming a billionaire is much easier and more common than the Starship project.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:49:50 pm
content: in the context of science, research and discovery. When it comes to designing and building something new the timeline to get it working isn't an indicator of success.With anything new you have too many unknown unknowns to have even the slightly idea how long it will take to succeed.Success is measured by demonstrating progress with the many 10000's of tiny steps that are needed.As long as that is happening and it keeps happening then success is 100% guaranteed... eventually.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 07, 2024, 12:33:03 pmThis has been the fate of numerous channels in YouTube, which started out with a thoughtful/knowledgable person making well balanced criticisms of things, and descended into extremism to keep the clicks up.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:52:26 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 07, 2024, 12:49:50 pmThis is not true of most things. They usually have a window of opportunity. If you are late you go bankrupt. Equally, if you are too early you go bankrupt waiting for the window to open. If you've been in the latter situation its ******* frustrating.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:54:03 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on June 07, 2024, 12:46:44 pmYeah, I would add that personal promises matter a lot, ones that are person to person. But promises that are company-to-public are simply advertising and should be treated as such. No company is your friend.There is also the fact that to my knowledge Elon has never said he "promises" to do anything by any specific date. He usually says stuff like "I think we'll have that done by 20xx or by next year" which isn't a promise anyway. Or maybe he says "That will be ready next year" which I don't consider a promise, just a prediction.Normally big companies don't have a figurehead like Elon posting publicly about company stuff. So when this does happen people tend to misinterpret this as personal promise to them when its just a company speaking to the public. It ends up being a bit parasocal and stirs up emotion.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 12:57:12 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 07, 2024, 12:52:26 pmAgree, Yes i should have added. "in the context of science, research and discovery. Not in the context of business-to-business or person-to-business where obviously the timeline matters"

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 02:52:30 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 07, 2024, 12:50:03 pmYes, I quite liked TF when he was taking the piss out of "intelligent design" and related areas. Where you can clearly show through empirical observation and published research someone is wrong, that makes for enjoyable and factual content.The channel now is mostly about how Elon sucks and this is why Elon will fail. Meh. Pass. I don't really give a crap! You can disagree with Elon all you want, his politics are ass, his support of Trump is dubious, but SpaceX and Tesla clearly employ some world-leading engineers and produce some pretty good stuff.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 03:11:36 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 07, 2024, 12:33:03 pmIn other words,audience capture.Quote from: coppice on June 06, 2024, 05:24:47 pmI know what you mean. Something about his accent makes me cringe.For a real if-you-keep-making-that-face-it-will-stay-that-way sneer, however, look at a picture of Eric Hobsbawm.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 03:55:38 pm
content: Quote from: helius on June 07, 2024, 03:11:36 pmA good example from yesterdayhttps://x.com/spacesudoer/status/1798742465509482646

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 05:15:11 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 02:52:30 pmYep, he fits into a classical picture of Jules Verne's ingenious inventor.. Btw. the reentry show was unique - perhaps the first time we saw the live pictures from within the plasma cloud thanks to his Starlinks.. Great!

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 05:29:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 02:52:30 pmI'm not doubting the engineers. But Musk is a con man and a grifter.Given the way things are headed I would not be surprised to see SpaceX's funding dry up. Equally I wouldn't be surprised to see it continue; Washington DC is full of politicians with dubious agendas and even more dubious understanding of science and engineering.Tesla is undergoing a hard lesson currently (pun intended), with the share price headed in the direction of its true value. It seems extremely unlikely Musk will get his demanded $56B share payout, and it's likely he'll have to sell off more Tesla shares to service interest payments on the Twitter/X loan. The less control he has over Tesla the better, imo.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 05:31:07 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on June 07, 2024, 05:15:11 pmHow?Whathas heactuallyinvented?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 06:07:18 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 07, 2024, 05:29:53 pmNah. Landing rockets and Starlink makes SpaceX cash flow positive for now.The fact is that before SpaceX were landing rockets an average launch for a satellite to GTO would cost $150-200mn. The rocket was disposed of entirely after this.NowSpaceX charges <$70mfor one launch and in most cases they can get over 10 launches out of a single rocket. Their costs are logistics, fuel, and operations, and the occasional stage/engine rebuild. They have a >99% landing success rate, and a >99.8% mission success rate, which is better than almost any other competitor in "old space".In simple maths, if we assume that the average launch has a value of $60mn (some are to LEO which will be cheaper, but others will require more engineering like custom payload adapters, so this feels like a fair estimate) then SpaceX had a revenue of $2.4bn in launches *alone* in 2023. Add on government contracts, other R&D and Starlink (est $6.6bn in 2024), and it's pretty easy to see how SpaceX would be profitable if they weren't spending tons of cash on Starship.Remember, the majority of SpaceX's revenue is not government in origin. It's from commercial launch operators, and they have a significant part of the market cornered now. No one else has the capability SpaceX has yet. No one else offers something like Starlink yet (at least not at the same scale; OneWeb is far from competitive.)So the idea of that SpaceX will dry up any time soon is a fantasy.Note this has nothing to do with Musk. While he is involved in some parts of the engineering, he seems to occupy more of the idea man position. The day to day is Gwynne Shotwell, she is clearly a very capable leader and has been running the company for 16 years now.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 06:23:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 06:07:18 pmSome of SpaceX's commercial launches are actually redirected government launches. For example half the resupply missions to the ISS are by SpaceX, and the other half are by Northrop Grumman. However, Northrop Grmman have to subcontract the launch to SpaceX, because their own JV, ULA, lacks a usable launch vehicle of its own. Its not so unlikely that we will see a Boeing StarLiner on top of a Falcon 9, because ULA doesn't seem to have enough RD-180 engines to launch many more Atlas 5s, and its going to take time before NASA is going to put people on top of a Vulcan rocket.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 06:36:47 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 06:07:18 pmActually Since F9 B5 was introduced there wasn't a single launch failure (it did over 300 launches). The only two rockets that blew up were early F9 FT when they started using supercooled oxygen and stumbled on never earlier seen failure mechanism in oxygen tank. Also it made 242 consecutive successful booster landings. So SpaceX is more reliable at landing than anyone else at just launching. The most flown booster had flown 21 time.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 07:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 06:07:18 pmStill waiting for my tourist ticket to the Moon since "by 2018".

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 08:30:13 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 07, 2024, 07:16:23 pmIf you had enough money you could go to LEO as Jared Isaacman and do a spacewalk though.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 08:34:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2024, 06:07:18 pmShe seems to be one of the very few people in the sector who sees their role as running a business providing products and services, rather than sucking the blood of the tax payer, or playing with toys.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 10:55:36 pm
content: Watching Starship launch (NASASpaceflight stream) while Boeing Starliner was docking to ISS

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 11:16:15 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 07, 2024, 07:16:23 pmPerhaps you are holding on to your TWA tickets to the moon from the 1960s?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2024, 11:20:28 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 07, 2024, 07:16:23 pmDid SpaceX ever sell you anything like that? No. So it was just an ambition. An overly optimistic one, but I doubt one made in bad faith.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 02:32:10 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 07, 2024, 05:29:53 pmIf a company, (eg board of directors and not a person) made a public statement saying they are going to do thing Y by X date. And X date happens without Y happening the general public doesn't care much. Maybe investors do, but the general public couldn't care less. The company's board of directors all signed-off on that statement but no one calls them all con-men/woman or grifters.But somehow if the company is instead owned by a single person, or just has a well known figure-head, and that person makes the same statement then people lose their shit when it doesn't happen.(I'm not saying you are losing your shit, just the public in general)It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying either point of view is correct or wrong, it's probably somewhere in the middle.but it doesn't make sense and it's not worth it or fair to publicly tear shreds off Musk for missing deadlines or overpromising things.IMHO anyway.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 07:01:29 am
content: Musk himself admits he's pathologically optimistic, especially with time.https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1786869041153679653However I think you need to be like that to do what he does, as otherwise you'd most likely wash your hands before even really starting to do anything this complicated.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 07:32:04 am
content: Three words: "Full Self Driving"

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 07:33:15 am
content: My comment, which I posted under Dave's video:Remember, this is still a development program. Melting flaps is exactly the sort of thing they want to find out about. Nevertheless, despite the issues seen, the intended objectives were achieved for BOTH the booster and the ship. That is a phenomenal achievement!Every flight to date has been an improvement over the previous flight ... which means this flight is the WORST example of the achievements for future flights. They will only get better!! Don't forget, this flight hardware isalready outdated!I can't wait for Flight 5 !!!!!

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 07:45:39 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on June 08, 2024, 07:33:15 amThen why fly it? Do the development work on the ground, where when something melts, it doesn't cause a bigger problem!

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 07:50:54 am
content: Starship is pretty impressive, but it's a prototype billionaire's executive toy.When they went to solicit private capital for SpaceX, their target investors were spun a bunch of dubious claims which to this day have not been met. Eventually they managed to move enough cash around behind the scenes to get a commercial launch operation going. This is propping up Starship development. The claims are still dubious. They should focus on commercial launch and building capital.Of course that's not how Musk operates, relying on the hype cycle and politics, which I can see here is causing a lot of brain rot.No Musk estate has delivered anything other than a prototype so far, other than SpaceX's commercial launch, and that was and still is being compromised by his management ideology from 15 years ago...(As a former very short term Model S owner, that includes Tesla who ship fucking garbage)

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 08:01:05 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 08, 2024, 07:45:39 amTo be fair if they run their engineering projects like they run twitter, the evidence of which is supportable at least, they appear to be biologists.Hey guys let’s try this and see if the organism dies.Edit: actually fuck, I think I made an analogy that applies to all those dead Neuralink monkeys too.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 08:48:05 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 08, 2024, 07:45:39 amAnd make SLSHow do you even test something like this on the ground? With no real testing the only way is to be so conservative that you make an outdated shit (as most of the rocket launch industry is).

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 08:50:22 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 08:48:05 amThey are not mutually exclusive.And the domain is not the only domain.Edit: and to reply to your latter edit, conservative engineering is generally a good idea if you want to (a) not kill people and (b) actually get someone to give you money. Everyone these days seems have forgotten a competent safety culture.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 08:55:04 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 08:50:22 amAnd then eventually run out of business when innovative competitor appears (ULA and Nokia if looking in other industries).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:04:23 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 08:50:22 amConsidering that Falcon 9 rockets have highest consecutive successful launch record in history by far, yeah, sure. One must do like NASA with their Space Shuttle program. Knowing a problem for 9 years, why bother iterating the design if it still works... 7 astronauts exploded, oopsie.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disasterQuote

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:06:23 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 08:55:04 amPick and choose. Meh.Arianespace is doing fine still and Roscosmos were doing ok until someone started a war.As for Nokia, they are still doing fine? I mean if you look at one of their original product lines, they are good at diverse production...

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:07:10 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 08:01:05 amNot sure if you guys realize, but it's the propaganda that is speaking through you. The mainstream-media induced-hate against Musk makes you blind.You have to periodically test flight your ground work/predictions, to make reality checks, so to see if the prediction were correct or not, and to harvest further data for even more refined predictions. Then, you want to know what other unexpected situations you encounter. The test flights are not random shoots.You always have to test, because you don't know what you don't know yet.About the monkeys, yeah, I've seen a neuralink demo on a pig, maybe they used monkeys, too, I don't know. The topic was about a rocket, but let's bring the "how about"-ism if you want. How about all the more evolved "monkeys" we call humans, that were killed in the WWII genocide, or in the today's genocide in Palestine? That would be politics and we don't discuss that here.My point is, maybe it's the mind conditioning that makes you hate Musk, or else how come that from a video about a rocket test, we came up to "Musk bad"? Why so many are bitching against Musk? It is not him who's draining billions into wars, and it is not him the one who's trying to collapse the western world.I think people have been mass-brainwashed into hating Musk, or else why would be Musk perceived as a threat, or even hated by the average people.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:13:44 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 09:06:23 amArianespace literally has no operational rocket. ESA had gone to SpaceX tired of waiting for Arianne 6. Nokia is completely out of phone business for about a decade. What's now sold under Nokia brand in tiny quantities has nothing to do with Nokia. They sold failing phone business to Microsoft, which killed it entirely and then branding was bought by HMD. Nokia literally had gone from a prevalent market leader to nothing in just a few years.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:15:09 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:04:23 amI don't think you can make that Falcon reliability claim. It would only show a poor understanding of formal statistics. That would require a suitable hypothesis and hypothesis test and it would need to be compared against other launch providers like Roscosmos. If you can quote a suitable p-value for your assertion, I'd love to talk about it.Lets put a null hypothesis down (H_0): SpaceX launches have the same success rate as Roscosmos.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:15:47 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:13:44 amNokia make other stuff too.And they license their brand still to make phones. So they are still in the phone market.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:16:54 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 09:15:09 am300+ successful concecutive launches tell me all I need to know. Show me anyone else with a track record even close.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:21:25 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on June 08, 2024, 09:07:10 amI literally work for a huge investment company that has teams of analysts working for them that say anything he goes near is a toxic investment. In fact they are trying to get rid of their early Tesla investment at the moment which pre-dates Musk's involvement. This is based on actual quantifiable financial modelling and the fact that their ETFs are being fucked hard by it.This is 100% correlated to when he opens the hole in his face.The rest of your point is delusional paranoia from your identity being attacked. Not only that your post is a massive irony.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:22:07 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 09:15:47 amExcept it's nothing compared to the size of their former phone business.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:23:22 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:16:54 amThus proving you have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand what I wrote.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:26:19 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on June 08, 2024, 09:07:10 amNo, it's simple application of critical thinking. I don't perceive him as a threat, nor do I hate him, I simply call out what I see the evidence for; he's a con man and a bully (he's much better at the former than the latter).Defending him despite all evidence as to his true nature is the behaviour of the brainwashed.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:29:02 am
content: NASA is doing Waterfall projects, SpaceX runs Agile..There are Pros and Cons in each approach..

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:37:30 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 09:23:22 amWhat you wrote is some gobbledygook to somehow prove unprovable. If one entity launches 300+ rockets successfully in a row and other fails once in a while, you don't tell me latter in more reliable. Falcon 9 B5 (rockets launched over the years were very different despite sharing the same F9 name) didn't fail even once since starting launching in 2018.QuoteQuoteThat would require SpaceX to fail

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:39:59 am
content: SpaceX is not building rockets, they are building a production line to build rockets.Because of this, it opens the door to a much cheaper and much faster development approach using "build-fly-fail-iterate-repeat"To build something and have it work perfectly first time you have to do an absolute insane amount of testing and simulations on every nut and bolt and then on every module made out of them. The paperwork and man hours required are enormous. Not to mention the inefficiency caused by the number of people that need to be involved. (unproductive meetings etc) It can be done, NASA does this. But it's like trying to write a professional software application but you're not allowed to hit compile on the entire program until it's finished. You're only permitted to compile and test low level functions in isolation.But it's even worse because anything Space related that pushes boundaries requires lots of new research. This takes the above software analogy and adds the fact that you're also creating the software coding language you're using, all while trying to write the application without being able to compile the whole project until the end.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:45:10 am
content: QuoteAgile projects, average staff age 25, BMI<25QuoteWaterfall projects, average staff age 50, BMI>35

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:52:26 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:37:30 amI can assure you it's not gobbledygook and I'm sure other fellow members of the Royal Statistics Society would agree with me on that as well. As well as literally anyone who has done anything science related past high school. Which you clearly haven't and are substituting some alternate reality with zero objectivity.The point is that you can't confidently isolate success from chance with any confidence unless there is a significant variance in the two values. Which is what the p-value above would indicate.So in a proper hypothesis test, which would need to be performed would result in a p-value with indicates the confidence in the hypothesis posted, which is the null hypothesis. If this is disproven, then we can see if there may be a distinction between SpaceX and Roscosmos. And that doesn't even define a causal relation then.My point is that you can't make a reliable claim excluding chance without an analysis, which you have not done so your point is scientifically, statistically and logically moot and entirely driven by emotion, which is a bad place to start an argument. Note I have made no claim either way.Notably on top of that, SpaceX have failedmanytimes. So you need to clarify the question further. What denotes a failure? What's the dataset? What is even the question posed? What is the collection methodology? What is your analysis? Is your interpretation correct?Simple statements are really complicated aren't they?If I was to do this, I would carefully define failure, take a population survey of ALL launches, work out a median failure rate and distribution. Then I would compare SpaceX to that. But that would require a research project. So an uninformed one liner argument to answer a reliability question is probably stupid.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:54:25 am
content: Quote from: Psi on June 08, 2024, 09:39:59 amBeing did this with CST-100 and it blew up in their face spectacularly. Several years later, they finally launches astronauts and it still had serious issues.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 09:59:33 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:54:25 amBoeing tried to do it, but failed at it.To be fair though, it's crazy hard to do successfully even when you have money to burn and almost infinite time,Boeing had neither.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 10:05:47 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 08, 2024, 09:54:25 amWhereas Starship doesn't after several years?There is only bias here.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 10:26:45 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 10:05:47 amExcept Starship that is currently launched is an experimental vehicle SpaceX develops on their own while Starliner was made according to the contract with NASA and was supposed to work on the first try. SpaceX made crew Dragon with less money, way less issues and hauling astronauts to ISS since 2020.EDIT: If you didn't notice it's the 4th orbital launch, 1st one was a year ago.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 10:39:48 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 10:05:47 amThat's rich from you. Shitting on the most successful and innovative company in the industry as if they don't know how do do stuff.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 12:01:47 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 10:05:47 amNow that is a truly absurd comparison. Starship is very much experimental. It does the basics of rocketry pretty well, and all its issues are where they are breaking new ground. Nobody has got full reusability to work right. The best by far that anyone has done is the reusability SpaceX has achieved with the Falcon 9. Rocket labs seem to be making good progress. The Space Shuttle's reusability was a farce. They could have build new launchers each flight for less than its refurbishment cost. The places where Starship is having issues are some of the key ones where shuttle had issues. No great surprise there. Things like reusable heat shields are hard. Shuttle's was a horrible mess. This might well defeat Starship, but only hard work and experiment will tell.CST-100 is just a rehash of things that were being done in the 1960s, with some modern control software. Its core design was also supposed to be nailed before the contract was signed, to the point with it should have been entirely D, and no R.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2024, 03:06:15 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on June 08, 2024, 09:23:22 amI haven't done the math, but I suspect neither of you can support your claims. The successful launch count for SpaceX suggests that the are at least in the ballpark with Ruscosmos on safety. Without computing a p number your assertions of lack of safety are as baseless as the opposite claim.