I mean the booster landed back right?

Tags
Off Topic

10 Comments

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image
    572 AstrumY

    @Toinkove I never said it was the plan for it to be destroyed

    27 days ago
  • Profile image
    398 Toinkove

    @AstrumY No one is twisting anyone’s words here, it’s literally what you typed!

    28 days ago
  • Profile image
    572 AstrumY

    @Toinkove it was not the "plan" but it wasn't something shocking Like it's the 7th time it flew. So please stop twisting my words

    28 days ago
  • Profile image
    398 Toinkove

    @AstrumY “not necessarily unexpected”
    ……
    Ok well if it was the plan was for starship to be destroyed in flight when it was (about 8:30 into the flight) then I’ll revise my assessment. But if not, sounds like we’re just lowering the standards so we can claim success.

    28 days ago
  • Profile image
    572 AstrumY

    @Toinkove That still was one of the MOST Important parts they've done this only once before Not like with falcon where it's routine. Plus Loosing starship considering it was v 2 is disappointing but not necessarily unexpected . I mean it would've just exploded in the ocean but spacex couldn't gather Data from reentry wich was the actual primary goal of IFT 7

    29 days ago
  • Profile image
    572 AstrumY

    @Toinkove the payload was just Simulators but you're right it was dissappinting seeing it disintegrate.

    29 days ago
  • Profile image

    @Toinkove yeah, it would have been cool to see live veiws of the dummy starlink v2s deploy from the despenser.

    29 days ago
  • Profile image
    398 Toinkove

    Correct, the booster landed back at the launch site! Unfortunately that's far less mission critical then keeping your primary craft (and payload) from exploding!

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @Toinkove ???

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    398 Toinkove

    You mean the least important part happened? Correct!

    one month ago

1 Upvote

Log in in to upvote this post.