not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to FuckMusk@lemmy.caEnglish · 8 days agoso much more expensive for the tax payer toolemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square72linkfedilinkarrow-up1734arrow-down135file-text
arrow-up1699arrow-down1imageso much more expensive for the tax payer toolemmy.blahaj.zonenot_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to FuckMusk@lemmy.caEnglish · 8 days agomessage-square72linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareDogWater@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·7 days agoY’all got the spirit but reusable rockets are SOOOOO much cheaper for customers to put something in orbit. That’s why nasa uses them so much.
minus-squareZron@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down3·7 days agoHow is it reusable if they all fail?
minus-squareatx_aquarian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·7 days agoNot pictured (that’s called cherry-picking): Falcon 9 has 469 successful launches for a >99% success rate right now.
minus-squareZron@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 days agoFalcon 9 was designed by a different engineer who has since left SpaceX, and was originally intended to have a reusable second stage like Starship, but that never happened either.
minus-squareDogWater@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·7 days agoJust Google it before you speak lmao
Y’all got the spirit but reusable rockets are SOOOOO much cheaper for customers to put something in orbit. That’s why nasa uses them so much.
How is it reusable if they all fail?
Not pictured (that’s called cherry-picking): Falcon 9 has 469 successful launches for a >99% success rate right now.
Falcon 9 was designed by a different engineer who has since left SpaceX, and was originally intended to have a reusable second stage like Starship, but that never happened either.
Just Google it before you speak lmao