←back to thread

Starship's Tenth Flight Test

(www.spacex.com)
364 points metalman | 2 comments | 26 Aug 25 23:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.54s | source
Show context
chasd00 ◴[27 Aug 25 00:38 UTC] No.45034091[source]▶
Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.
replies(4): >>45034127 #>>45034176 #>>45034815 #>>45036590 #
kersplody ◴[27 Aug 25 00:50 UTC] No.45034176[source]▶
Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.
replies(3): >>45034203 #>>45034247 #>>45034855 #
oska ◴[27 Aug 25 02:35 UTC] No.45034855[source]▶
What's the need for tile waterproofing ?
replies(2): >>45035119 #>>45035474 #
relwin ◴[27 Aug 25 04:30 UTC] No.45035474[source]▶
Thunderf00t shows various tile problems with Starship: https://youtu.be/MZUQe38SJIs?si=QAVIk7fMX1HIQETb (he's not a fan of Musk)
replies(2): >>45035808 #>>45037148 #
oska ◴[27 Aug 25 05:39 UTC] No.45035808[source]▶
Mildly interesting to be exposed to the world of 'YouTube engineers' who are derisory of the real-world engineering success of SpaceX. Informed criticism is fine but when you're just openly calling a world class engineering company 'stupid' then you deserve to be ignored (except, obviously, by everyone suffering from MDS).
replies(1): >>45035860 #
foxglacier ◴[27 Aug 25 05:50 UTC] No.45035860[source]▶
Thunderfoot is a long-time Musk project hater for some reason. That's now his specialty which probably appeals to his audience. There are plenty of equally uninformed youtubers with glowing praise for SpaceX. Just like the real news, people divide themselves into bubbles of whatever reinforces their beliefs.
replies(1): >>45035900 #
1. oska ◴[27 Aug 25 05:57 UTC] No.45035900[source]▶
> There are plenty of equally uninformed youtubers with glowing praise for SpaceX

Definitely true

> Just like the real news, people divide themselves into bubbles of whatever reinforces their beliefs

Hopefully HN can be better than that and be a place for informed criticism or informed praise from whatever provenance

replies(1): >>45094600 #
2. foxglacier ◴[01 Sep 25 17:16 UTC] No.45094600[source]▶
Provenance kind of matters though because we can't work out all the details of every piece of information and have to put a bit of trust in the source. A way I like it to cite a source with the opposite bias of what you're trying to say. If even the opponents of the general idea agree with some part of it, that's stronger support than it's supporters agreeing.