Comment on FAA grounds SpaceX after rocket falls over in flames.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoTrue but also something that should have been tested for and known before it was upright and fuelled again. I.e. why didn’t safety checks catch the issue(s)?
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Oh, absolutely. And this failure here will just show that these are things that need to be done in the maintenance, which will make them last even longer.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I think the other idea is to retire them before they fail to avoid unnecessary risks and landing pad repairs.
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That’s true, but the more resilient they can be made the better. I know at first they were talking about potentially reusing them 10 times each and now they have successfully demonstrated that they can do it 20 times each instead. So perhaps with some extra maintenance work and some inspections they could get it up to 30 or 40 times per booster. There would obviously become a point where maintenance would cost more than just building a new booster at which point they would obviously start retiring boosters and making new ones to replace them instead of reflying them.
Kbobabob@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So they should have only flown this one 22 times? How do you determine the best “before they fail” point?
vxx@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You bring it up to specs before the next launch. I’d you can’t do that, you have to scrap it.