News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly by motorest on Thursday June 19, 2025 @03:44AM (#44316412)
> You are comparing "sending a small crew for a few days on the Moon ASAP for propaganda purposes" with "setting up a permanent outpost on the Moon".

No, OP is comparing a launcher that worked reliably (it's in the history books) with a launcher which never performed a mission and is reporting "anomalies".

Re:SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly by m4rtink on Thursday June 19, 2025 @04:56AM (#44316734)
Many Saturn V stages blew up on test stands as well (its also in the history books) and some flight were very much on the edge of success. It was also not trying to make the whole system reusable and economicaly sustainable (just check when the last Saturn V flight was - if it was sustainable it would be still flying, right ?).
Re:SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly by aredox on Thursday June 19, 2025 @05:46AM (#44317011)
Launched reliably... 12 times.
Re:SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly by motorest on Thursday June 19, 2025 @05:55AM (#44317049)
> Launched reliably... 12 times.

Was it required to launch more?

How many moon missions did Starship fulfilled? It seems 50 years ago SaturnV launched 12 times more than Starship.

Re:SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly by aredox on Thursday June 19, 2025 @08:48AM (#44318176)
Reliable statistics require a minimum of 30 samples.