so did it succeed or fail? depending on the newspaper's ideological orientation, I heard both
Did it successfully deliver its intended payload? No. So it was a failure.
why isn't it more phallic?
The booster landing succeeded and it's the first one they've reused. It's semantics whether you want to call that a mitigated failure when the payload has been in fact destroyed.
This is just the testing phase where anything could have happened. Dropped some shit which was a failure. Re-landed a rocket which is an incredible achievement. Not something easy to do technically and this is the third time apparently. This kind of experiment will only help bring costs down. A success in my opinion but you rocket scientists will proabably argue it's not.
>>16962304spacex nailed booster landing ages ago. fuck, they caught a superheavy booster. bezos has been desperately playing catchup.
>>16962304Booster landing is practically useless when you are blowing up the payloads.
well you pay those people to deliver cargo in space, not to bring the rocket down but destroy the cargo
>>16962318Spacex are far ahead of anyone else due to how much money and resources they have chucked at this. What we don't want is one company having a monopoly on space, especially a private company. Competition is VITAL.>>16962450Blue Origin are pretty new to this and landing a booster is a success for them. Nasa have been in the game longer than anyone and haven't even tried. We need the competition although NASA and Space Force will ensure there is always a government power overseeing a lot of space shit.
>>16962660They blew up the payload. Landing a booster is worthless because for one blown up payload you waste all the savings and more from dozens of landed boosters. You act like landing a booster is some kind of goal in off itself when it's not, it's only a good thing IF it leads to overall cost savings which when you are blowing up payloads as often as blue origin is it does not. NASA doesn't care about landing boosters because they want things in orbit.
>>16962664Landing a booster is not pointless if you aren't experienced at landing boosters. They will only improve. I know you geniuses would get it perfect every time but no one will give you guys the funding to even try.
>>16962267Main mission is a failure. Satellite payload was lost. Booster landing is good tho.
>>16962668Landing boosters is not a self value, booster that comes down reduces payload and increases cost of the rocket at a promise that if the rocket is used enough times then it pays itself back. This is not going to happen when the rocket is unreliable enough that it constantly blows up the payloads.
>>16962695Only spacex are landing boosters. If no one else is landing boosters, and a company that isn't spacex lands a booster. Then is is a success you retard. How many rockets have spacex blown up? Just having two companies that can both independently land boosters will bring the cost down because Elon won't have a monopoly on the price of launching boosters. Competition brings prices down, not monopolies. Blue origin do not have a track record of landing boosters, have barely even tried, landed one successfully. So yes, it was a success and will eventually bring prices down. It doesn't consistently blowup payloads because they are still in the early stages of doing this kind of launch. Spacex aren't the only company and they aren't giving other companies cheap rates on sending payloads into space. If I gave you a trillion dollars to do this, you wouldn't do it first time and would probably blow up many boosters and payloads. So yes this is a success, you just can't wrap your head around it because in your brain another company is already doing this and you would just pay them to do it, which would create a monopoly eventually and cause prices to increase.
There's no way Artemis IV is happening on schedule. We don't have a working lunar landing system, and no way blue origin or spacex are going to be able to test and deliver one to lunar orbit by 2028.
>>16962709When you blow up the payload you aren't bringing costs down.
>>16962735You cannot think past this individual mission can you? Jeff is going to use the data he has gathered to make sure that the next mission goes better. And guess what, if he does that then yes, it will bring costs down. Because there will be more than one company that everyone has to rely on that can deliver payloads to space. Blue origin are only the second company that can land boosters dipshit.That is a massive achievement. Costs come down with progress and comeptition. Failure happens, how many rockets did Elon blow up??? Many. HAs he brought costs down with all those failures??? YES. It is now cheaper to put shit into space.
>>16962267Payload status?
