Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "SpaceX Starship fails after launch: What does it mean? | DW News" video.

  1. Did it reach its stated goals? No? then it is an objective failure.
    4
  2. I do remember the old Apollo times, when we didnt have thatmuch explosions during testflights.
    2
  3. Yeah, an almost success is still a failure.
    2
  4. No the actual plan was that the booster lands on the ocean, and the upper stage lands in Hawaii.
    2
  5. 15 minutes survival? This thing thas to survive a year if it intends to go to Mars.
    2
  6. I didnt see the booster landing on the ocean or the upper stage landing in Hawaii, so yeah, it pretty much a failure.
    2
  7. Well, the whole contractual launch market worth aroun 3 billion Euros annually, so its not a great business, rather a very nieche market. And it is perfectly serviceable with what we have currently. Spending 2 billions for a superheavy lifter annually will never bring back its price, unless the market itself quadruples. Its not SpaceX is the first launch provider who realize there is no market for those.
    1
  8. And do you think it is a big feast to get astronauts into low earth orbit? I think it took the Soviets 3 years to do it from their first satellite to gagarin 50 years ago, it took Musk 9 years to make the same feat. @apollo-eu4fk 
    1
  9. Until that thing explodes on the launchpad, kills tens of thousands of people, and everybody will ask, how could that happen, and how the government could let it happen.
    1
  10. Yeah, it is somewhat understandable that FAA dont want to give licence to a rocket which have the explosive force of a tactical nuke, launched with the promise, that it maybe wont detonate in southern Texas, wiping out a wildlife reserve.
    1