OnlyForNow said:

---

I mean, in all likelihood they knew it wouldn't reach orbit 25 seconds after launch right?

So they just got it up up and away, before pushing the big red button to make it go boom...?

---

Wild Rover 2 war zone footage with audio. Good stuff! #SpaceX #Starbase #Starship #Superheavy pic.twitter.com/Y8loOualXR

— LabPadre (@LabPadre) April 20, 2023

PJYoung said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

I mean, in all likelihood they knew it wouldn't reach orbit 25 seconds after launch right?

So they just got it up up and away, before pushing the big red button to make it go boom...?

---

Getting thru Max Q was a huge deal.

---

PJYoung said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

I mean, in all likelihood they knew it wouldn't reach orbit 25 seconds after launch right?

So they just got it up up and away, before pushing the big red button to make it go boom...?

---

Getting thru Max Q was a huge deal.

---

will25u said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

I mean, in all likelihood they knew it wouldn't reach orbit 25 seconds after launch right?

So they just got it up up and away, before pushing the big red button to make it go boom...?

---

Getting thru Max Q was a huge deal.

---

Watching NSF they said they didn't think Super Heavy made it to MAX-Q as if it was going to space. SH only made it to ~30,000 ft. Max-Q would have been hit around 40,000 ft.

Max-Q happens with every flight depending on the final destination.

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.

---

And yet it's working perfectly for Space X

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

It reached an altitude of 38km (124,600ft)

---

Zergling Rush said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.

---

And yet it's working perfectly for Space X

---

BREAKING FOOTAGE 🚀 SpaceX #Starship, world’s biggest rocket, explodes during test flight pic.twitter.com/LDcGLB70vJ

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) April 20, 2023

apparently not......

---

Shit blew up—In the sky, on the ground, and on the internet. Some thoughts:https://t.co/Cc33G4ejYS

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) April 20, 2023

Quote:

---

So SpaceX's process is messier, but it is also much faster. Consider this: NASA spent billions of dollars and the better part of a decade constructing the Space Launch System rocket that had a nearly flawless debut flightaside from damage to the launch towerin late 2022. NASA followed a linear design method, complete with extensive and expensive analysis, because a failure of the SLS rocket would have raised serious questions about the agency's competence.

Fortunately for SpaceX, the company can afford to "fail." It can do so because it has already built three more Super Heavy rockets that are nearly ready to fly. In fact, SpaceX can build ten Super Heavy first stages in the time it takes NASA to build a single SLS rocket. If the first five fail but the next five succeed, which is a better outcome? How about in two or three years, when SpaceX is launching and landing a dozen or more Super Heavy rockets while NASA's method allows it a single launch a year?

So yes, SpaceX's rocket exploded on Thursday. The company will learn. And it will fly again, perhaps some time later this fall or winter. Soon, it probably will be flying frequently.

---

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.

---

And yet it's working perfectly for Space X

---

Again, its a cost issue at that point. Musk is capable of plowing billions upon billions into SpaceX. Not every company is in that position to eat all of those up front development costs.

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Geddy Lee soul patch said:

---

VR Cam caught some spectacular footage as #SuperHeavy rocked #SpaceX #Starbase this morning. I am floored at the amount of debris that was ejected. Waiting on Rover 2 damage assessment. Congratulations @elonmusk on pulling this historical launch! pic.twitter.com/6WKEXFqCGN

— LabPadre (@LabPadre) April 20, 2023

---

So much debris

---

That camera was a good 300-400 yards from the launch pad. For some perspective.

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

---

That must be from the "Rocket Ranch" place - they are close!

---

Bubblez said:

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.

---

lb3 said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Geddy Lee soul patch said:

---

VR Cam caught some spectacular footage as #SuperHeavy rocked #SpaceX #Starbase this morning. I am floored at the amount of debris that was ejected. Waiting on Rover 2 damage assessment. Congratulations @elonmusk on pulling this historical launch! pic.twitter.com/6WKEXFqCGN

— LabPadre (@LabPadre) April 20, 2023

---

So much debris

---

That camera was a good 300-400 yards from the launch pad. For some perspective.

---

Did you eyeball that?

---

FireAg said:

---

I left in 2006...unless she's in Medical Operations, EVA, or has become an FD from a former position in the last few years, I probably don't...but never know...PM me if you want...

---

Bregxit said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Caliber said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.

---

Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.

We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.

---

A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.

Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.

---

Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.

---

And yet it's working perfectly for Space X

---

Again, its a cost issue at that point. Musk is capable of plowing billions upon billions into SpaceX. Not every company is in that position to eat all of those up front development costs.

---

I the past 11 years since SLS started, SpaceX has developed the Falcon 9, Dragon, Dragon 2, nailed rocket reusability and is sending crewed missions to soace for under $1 billion in development cost total. Elon isn't plowing billions upon billions into anything. SpaceX is making a killing now by launching most tonnage each year into space.

Meanwhile SLS has had one launch in 11 years at a cost of $24 billion.

Which approach seems better?

---

Confirmed by FAA: Starship's automated flight termination system terminated the rocket.

— Christian Davenport (@wapodavenport) April 20, 2023

lb3 said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Geddy Lee soul patch said:

---

VR Cam caught some spectacular footage as #SuperHeavy rocked #SpaceX #Starbase this morning. I am floored at the amount of debris that was ejected. Waiting on Rover 2 damage assessment. Congratulations @elonmusk on pulling this historical launch! pic.twitter.com/6WKEXFqCGN

— LabPadre (@LabPadre) April 20, 2023

---

So much debris

---

That camera was a good 300-400 yards from the launch pad. For some perspective.

---

Did you eyeball that?

---

Liftoff from Starbase pic.twitter.com/rgpc2XO7Z9

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) April 20, 2023