SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bonefish who wrote (1528085)3/9/2025 1:35:43 AM
From: i-node1 Recommendation

Recommended By
longz

   of 1575955
 
I don't know how practical it would be in terms of the rapid schedules Space-X requires, given the assembly happens in TX.

I think there is a lot of alarmism over this sequence of two flights, but it is quite atypical if you consider the fact that out of 100s of launches the number failures is in single-digits.

That being said, there really isn't enough information out there as yet as to whether this failure was related to the last one. But the process has been to run it until it either RUDs or achieves it objective, whichever comes first. So, you're going to have failures.

I have no idea really how big of a problem the mess it makes in that airspace for a little while is. I think there were a few large plans that had to re-route slightly or go into a holding pattern for a bit.

One other point is that with the successful return to Earth of the boosters, that is a lot of material that would post significantly more dangerous that has been safely landed, so that's something at least.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News