True 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)?
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.
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.
How would it fail if it was within specs? Is it a design error you say?
I would bet it’s the same reason Boeing is currently going down, greed over safety.
I mean, how much can we trust SpaceX, when they try to tell us that exploding starships, that were said to land on mars at 2026, are a huge success?
Tbf, it might not even be greed, but trying to meet the impossible expectations musk seemingly makes up on the spot. It’s lies over lies with him, and SpaceX can only do so much to work around him.
True 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)?
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.
I think the other idea is to retire them before they fail to avoid unnecessary risks and landing pad repairs.
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.
So they should have only flown this one 22 times? How do you determine the best “before they fail” point?
You bring it up to specs before the next launch. If you can’t do that, you have to scrap it.
Is there something saying they flew this out of spec? The way I understand the situation is that something failed which can happen.
How would it fail if it was within specs? Is it a design error you say?
I would bet it’s the same reason Boeing is currently going down, greed over safety.
I mean, how much can we trust SpaceX, when they try to tell us that exploding starships, that were said to land on mars at 2026, are a huge success?
Tbf, it might not even be greed, but trying to meet the impossible expectations musk seemingly makes up on the spot. It’s lies over lies with him, and SpaceX can only do so much to work around him.