CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,316
- United States
I'd say the company that made the failed part blew up someone's payload, not exactly SpaceX's fault.Grounded why? Oh, they blew up somebody's payload.
Umm, you must have missed the part where I specificially said "since returning from being grounded". Test missions are a waste of money and resources. Attaching the landing tests to an actual mission is far more efficient. And they are doing just that. The whole point of landing boosters is to save money, additional test flights negates that.2 for 2???? Really? Since returning to flight, yes, but they've tried FOUR landings, and have only kept ONE booster intact. This is EXACTLY why they should fly some test missions, to work out the issues they're having.
Horrible example.What happened after the landing on that last one is not "a different story." Suppose the Apollo 11 lander had folded a leg on reaching the moon, perhaps destroying the lander, but at least trapping the two astronauts with no hope of leaving the surface..... "Well, yeah, but they landed, so it worked!"
Oh?It isn't "way more impressive" until it works. So far, it hasn't worked.
Totally disagree and my previous posts explain why. Going straight up and straight back down is kiddie play compared to the process of landing a booster from down range.I'm not saying Blue Origin is a better package than SpaceX. I'm saying their process is better, and so far, more successful.