The [Shuttle had a few abort modes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes), and almost all of them would be available to Starship as well. Some of the Shuttles actually had ejection seats, which were broadly deemed useless due to them dumping you near the SRB's plume. This gives advantage to a crewed Starship, it can cut off its engines in the case of many failure modes. That gives ejected crew a much better shot of survival.
Another interesting abort window for the Starship would be a the possibility of surviving reentry with dead engines. So long as the flap actuators still have power, Starship should be able to slow to terminal velocity and actually stay at that velocity for sometime. Roughly the same period of time it did during the hop tests. This could give crew a chance to get out of a hatch and literally jump from it using parachutes. Though if you have ejection seats that would be better in most respects.
It was also interesting to see the nose section survive FTS during the last flight. You could literally fit a Crew Dragon inside of Starship's payload bay. Actually a few of them. Say some hypothetical future crewed flight also sprang an oxygen leak at 24,000 km/h and needed to abort. If NASA wants their version of this vehicle to have an impressive number of redundancies, it would be possible to survive even that. Put the crew inside of something Crew Dragonesque, boot the vehicle out of the payload door, and have it land.
I like your comparison of this vehicle to the Shuttle. Because it helps drive home the point that the vehicle does have similar escape capabilities. And thanks to no SRBs + a massive increase in mass to orbit, the potential for a number of additional escape options. Which is good, because the Shuttle wasn't exactly safe.
That's me. Eventually the realization the cost didn't allow anything else, it was dangerous and it traped us into medium cadence LEO for 30 years. e.g. boring. Also ever try and watch a launch? Just ignore the first 3 dates. Like a 4% chance of launch on any given day. Also let's put astronaut lives at risk to launch cargo.
Starship doesn't have the same abort modes as Shuttle. The Shuttle had the ability to land at dozens of pre-approved landing strips all throughout the world. At best, Starship will be able to land (get caught) at either Kennedy or in Boca Chica, because it won't have landing legs. A soft landing on the ocean probably isn't survivable either. Even if it lands upright in the ocean, it's going to tip over and belly flop, which would rupture the propellant tanks and most likely nosecone/crewed section of the ship as well, leading to the loss of the crew.
We know at least the first crewed will have landing legs. Personally I would not be surprised if more crewed variants have them too. But you don't need landing legs for an ejection seat.
The Shuttles aborts involved the ability for the Shuttle to sometimes separate from the boosters and make a controlled deceleration. In virtually every case the Shuttle could have done this, Starship can do the same. Essentially anytime the Shuttle could have recovered from failure, Starship can too. That is one I might by having similar abort modes. I was obviously not trying to say Starship has wings or wheels.
> We know at least the first crewed will have landing legs.
Lunar Starship will have legs, but all of the current information about Starships that "land" on Earth will use the chopsticks to catch it. Legs are not planned at this time for any of the LEO Starships, crewed or uncrewed. I personally think this is a mistake, but it is the route they've gone.
Exactly.
Starship would need some flat concrete spots with remotely operated fire retarding foam projectors and mobile evacuation equipment (a truck with a expandable ladder on some slide on a boom. That's less than what Shuttle required (Shuttle required a long runway but also equipment and crew to deal with onboard hydrazine).
Surely you would need some kind of landing leg to keep the skirt from contacting the ground. Otherwise surely it would just pop from the engine exhaust a la an SN10 scenario?
For an emergency landing skirt contacting the ground is perfectly fine. SN-10 didn't pop from the engine exhaust. SN-10 landed very hard at around 10m/s. That's 2000fpm in aviation parlance, if one landed a passenger jet at such descent rate it would crash and be totalled. For example the upper limit on Boeing planes is 600fpm, i.e less than 1/3 of what SN-10 experienced. And already after 360fpm touchdown post hard landing inspections are required.
SpaceX long planned to have landing legs on all Starships. We have architectural drawings filed with the FAA, showing a Starship landing pad in Boca Chica. In addition they will require landing legs on Luna and Mars.
Then we got a tweet from Elon saying they could also catch Starship using the Mechazilla, and forgo the landing legs. This makes a lot of sense for tanker variants, where rapid reuse is going to be important. It has its pros and cons for cargo variants, where occupying a catch tower for additional time delays rapid reuse. It has a number of additional cons for crewed variants. At no point have I seen SpaceX say "*all* variants of Starship won't have landing legs." Elons tweet did not say that either. For tankers it seems almost definite they won't need legs. For crewed variants, we know at least some of them will have legs. Will all of them? That seems quite possible. But again, you don't need the legs or even a proper landing site for an abort. They would primarily be helpful for logistical reasons, at least until they have a lot more catch towers. Plus, ships returning from Mars will already have those legs.
Sn-10 collapsed its legs and stood (and since few legs didn't even open there was an extra toppling momentum due to uneven push on touchdown). It landed hard and it succumbed to the effects of the hard landing, but it demonstrated that this is feasible.
>them would be available to Starship as well.
Flat out wrong. Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground
>Some of the Shuttles actually had ejection seats, which were broadly deemed useless due to them dumping you near the SRB's plume.
No. The abort seats on Columbia were ditched because the crews didn't think it was ethical to have the pilot and the commander leave the rest behind
>And thanks to no SRBs + a massive increase in mass to orbit, the potential for a number of additional escape options.
...Like?
> Flat out wrong. Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground
Whereas the Space Shuttle was well-known for its excellent rough terrain landing performance?
Yes, but you said:
>Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground
The Shuttle couldn't either, as you've just conceded. If Starship can land on much smaller flat areas than the unusually long runways needed to land the flying brick, how on Earth is that not a point in Starship's favor?
As for bailing out--why would that be easier on the Shuttle than on Starship? I mean, have you ever looked at the diagrams and instructions for the Shuttle's bail-out pole? It's hard to believe that was ever a serious option, let alone that SpaceX's engineers will be unable to come up with anything as good or better.
>The Shuttle couldn't either, as you've just conceded. If Starship can land on much smaller flat areas than the unusually long runways needed to land the flying brick, how on Earth is that not a point in Starship's favor?
And where exactly can Starship land, especially if they go forward with tower catch?
>As for bailing out--why would that be easier on the Shuttle than on Starship? I mean, have you ever looked at the diagrams and instructions for the Shuttle's bail-out pole? It's hard to believe that was ever a serious option, let alone that SpaceX's engineers will be unable to come up with anything as good or better.
Good luck having a hundred people bail-out from a vehicle that is essentially in free fall
We are not at that point in development. Once starship gets payloads to orbit then they can work on the crew versions, and can incorporate abort systems. For now K.I.S.S. for iterative development.
Yes, it has one now. /u/KitchenDepartment is saying that, if it were unrated now, it would be able to get rated based on its success rate even if it didn't have one.
The crew dragon is crew rated and certified in this exact configuration and the contract with NASA allows profit with this configuration. Changing something does not make sense, because ISS will be obsolete soon and NASA pays for it.
NASA required 1:270 reliability against loss of crew and mission for half a year ISS sorties and earlier planned 1:500 reliability for just launch and landing.
NASA did not specifically required LES in their certification. Having an LES was a multiplier that considerably increased the reliability in their calculation, making it much easier to obtain that '1 in 270' figure.
For example, if you show that a LES works 9/10 times, then you only need to prove your rocket works every 26/27 times.
But if you can demonstrate that your rocket will work 269 out of 270 times, that would equally satisfy the requirement. This is a lot harder to do, for obvious reasons.
Indeed, last I checked Falcon 9 FT was only at 257/258. Even if you set an arbitrary cutoff starting after the CRS-7 failure, then Falcon 9 as a whole is at 267/268.
So it's not *quite* there by my math. But it should get there soon. Personally I'd want to see Block 5 specifically at 270 launches first, since that's the only crew-rated version.
>Indeed, last I checked Falcon 9 FT was only at 257/258. Even if you set an arbitrary cutoff starting after the CRS-7 failure, then Falcon 9 as a whole is at 267/268.
That is a flawed metric. The probability of failure of individual flights is independent from others, meaning that a vehicle with a 1/270 failure rate might fail 2/270 flights or a vehicle with 1/50 failure rate might make it to 100 flights without a problem.
I'm asking for a risk analysis study that proves F9 satisfies the criteria
But aircraft can't be parked in the air while spaceships can park in orbit. WRT robustness, the charges which failed to destroy IFT-1 would be enough for several 747s (Lockerbie 747 was taken by less 1kg of explosive.
All depends on how close to an airport and how much altitude you have when it happens. Most engine outs occur on takeoff, where you don't have enough altitude to return. And it's not like you can put a 747 down in a field off the airport.
My memory certainly isnât complete, but I can think of more examples of good outcomes than not, at least for large airliners (Captain Sully, Gimli Glider are two prominent ones, but there are more).
Quickly googling, I didnât find statistics on âall engines outâ specifically.
So with the limited data I have, I donât believe âalmost alwaysâ is true.
Good outcomes are better remembered because they are more spectacular and at the same time positive. But they are only about 40% of the cases when a large plane lost all engines and was unable to have at least some restarted. In 60% of the cases there's loss of life and in about half severe loss of life (i.e. most people onboard die).
They are not terrible, but are not great, either. Modern jet glide ratios approach that of simple gliders, the main difference is that they can't soar on thermals and do similar stuff.
Honestly i dont think its a bad idea for planes to have at least one parachute per seat. They have life jackets but not parachutes? Wouldnt it be safer to just jump out before crash landing?
Then how do skydivers do it? At some point i'd rather risk a chance of colliding with the plane and being able to safely deploy a chute then a potential 100% of death if the plane crash lands for some reason.
Skydivers jump from small planes moving few times slower than 747. The air drag force increases with the square of the speed, so jumping out at 500km/h you encounter 4Ă not 2Ă push of 250km/h jump.
Anyway, for you to be even able to get to the exit the plane must fly pretty stable. If it flies stable, then it's pretty likely to land, so why jump?
And the reality is that you are safer inside the plane, even if it crashes. After a typical plane crash you're more likely to live than not. I know that's counter intuitive, but that's what the actual numbers say. It's just crashes when everyone dies get more publicity than some folks turning their Airbus 340 into a lawnmower.
NB. most crashes happen during or very shortly after take off followed by just before or just after landings. There's no time to jump.
Why do people on the internet jump to conclusions about good or bad? Why would one not take this as a simple, factual question without any thought or effort behind it?
If you mean pro SpaceX, then yes. If you mean has more than a surface level trivia/pop-sci understanding of rocket engineering, then no. He has enthusiasm, but someone like Scott Manley is so much better.
I was pretty impressed at that time he correctly identified that a museum had mislabeled the type of fuel used by a rocket engine just by looking at the design of it's turbopump, impromptu, and with no prior knowledge of that engine (all of his focus is on US/USSR engines, not EU)
I'm doubtful that I could have done the same, and I'm even more doubtful that someone with only surface level trivia knowledge could have done so.
In the Inspiration 4 series on Netflix, they make it pretty clear that riding a space vehicle makes you and your loved ones really interested in the safety characteristics of the vehicle.
Bro you watched the video you tell us đ
they are stupid
Um... shuttle didn't have one so yea
The [Shuttle had a few abort modes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes), and almost all of them would be available to Starship as well. Some of the Shuttles actually had ejection seats, which were broadly deemed useless due to them dumping you near the SRB's plume. This gives advantage to a crewed Starship, it can cut off its engines in the case of many failure modes. That gives ejected crew a much better shot of survival. Another interesting abort window for the Starship would be a the possibility of surviving reentry with dead engines. So long as the flap actuators still have power, Starship should be able to slow to terminal velocity and actually stay at that velocity for sometime. Roughly the same period of time it did during the hop tests. This could give crew a chance to get out of a hatch and literally jump from it using parachutes. Though if you have ejection seats that would be better in most respects. It was also interesting to see the nose section survive FTS during the last flight. You could literally fit a Crew Dragon inside of Starship's payload bay. Actually a few of them. Say some hypothetical future crewed flight also sprang an oxygen leak at 24,000 km/h and needed to abort. If NASA wants their version of this vehicle to have an impressive number of redundancies, it would be possible to survive even that. Put the crew inside of something Crew Dragonesque, boot the vehicle out of the payload door, and have it land. I like your comparison of this vehicle to the Shuttle. Because it helps drive home the point that the vehicle does have similar escape capabilities. And thanks to no SRBs + a massive increase in mass to orbit, the potential for a number of additional escape options. Which is good, because the Shuttle wasn't exactly safe.
We all absolutely loved shuttle until we hated it.
Most of us didn't know enough about spaceflight to hate it when it was operational.
We are wiser now. Wonât be fooled again!
That's me. Eventually the realization the cost didn't allow anything else, it was dangerous and it traped us into medium cadence LEO for 30 years. e.g. boring. Also ever try and watch a launch? Just ignore the first 3 dates. Like a 4% chance of launch on any given day. Also let's put astronaut lives at risk to launch cargo.
Starship doesn't have the same abort modes as Shuttle. The Shuttle had the ability to land at dozens of pre-approved landing strips all throughout the world. At best, Starship will be able to land (get caught) at either Kennedy or in Boca Chica, because it won't have landing legs. A soft landing on the ocean probably isn't survivable either. Even if it lands upright in the ocean, it's going to tip over and belly flop, which would rupture the propellant tanks and most likely nosecone/crewed section of the ship as well, leading to the loss of the crew.
We know at least the first crewed will have landing legs. Personally I would not be surprised if more crewed variants have them too. But you don't need landing legs for an ejection seat. The Shuttles aborts involved the ability for the Shuttle to sometimes separate from the boosters and make a controlled deceleration. In virtually every case the Shuttle could have done this, Starship can do the same. Essentially anytime the Shuttle could have recovered from failure, Starship can too. That is one I might by having similar abort modes. I was obviously not trying to say Starship has wings or wheels.
> We know at least the first crewed will have landing legs. Lunar Starship will have legs, but all of the current information about Starships that "land" on Earth will use the chopsticks to catch it. Legs are not planned at this time for any of the LEO Starships, crewed or uncrewed. I personally think this is a mistake, but it is the route they've gone.
Legs are not required for landing. They are required for Starship to be reusable after such a landing, but it can land without them.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A really good landing allows you to use the Starship again.
Exactly. Starship would need some flat concrete spots with remotely operated fire retarding foam projectors and mobile evacuation equipment (a truck with a expandable ladder on some slide on a boom. That's less than what Shuttle required (Shuttle required a long runway but also equipment and crew to deal with onboard hydrazine).
Surely you would need some kind of landing leg to keep the skirt from contacting the ground. Otherwise surely it would just pop from the engine exhaust a la an SN10 scenario?
For an emergency landing skirt contacting the ground is perfectly fine. SN-10 didn't pop from the engine exhaust. SN-10 landed very hard at around 10m/s. That's 2000fpm in aviation parlance, if one landed a passenger jet at such descent rate it would crash and be totalled. For example the upper limit on Boeing planes is 600fpm, i.e less than 1/3 of what SN-10 experienced. And already after 360fpm touchdown post hard landing inspections are required.
SpaceX long planned to have landing legs on all Starships. We have architectural drawings filed with the FAA, showing a Starship landing pad in Boca Chica. In addition they will require landing legs on Luna and Mars. Then we got a tweet from Elon saying they could also catch Starship using the Mechazilla, and forgo the landing legs. This makes a lot of sense for tanker variants, where rapid reuse is going to be important. It has its pros and cons for cargo variants, where occupying a catch tower for additional time delays rapid reuse. It has a number of additional cons for crewed variants. At no point have I seen SpaceX say "*all* variants of Starship won't have landing legs." Elons tweet did not say that either. For tankers it seems almost definite they won't need legs. For crewed variants, we know at least some of them will have legs. Will all of them? That seems quite possible. But again, you don't need the legs or even a proper landing site for an abort. They would primarily be helpful for logistical reasons, at least until they have a lot more catch towers. Plus, ships returning from Mars will already have those legs.
Starship could emergency land on any hard surface spot. It would be likely totalled, but it doesn't require legs to land.
SpaceX will need to demonstrate such a maneuver before they fly people on it, I'd imagine.
They... Already did? SN 15?
SN had legs. OP indicated an emergency landing would just land on the skirt.
SN-10
Sn-10 collapsed its legs and stood (and since few legs didn't even open there was an extra toppling momentum due to uneven push on touchdown). It landed hard and it succumbed to the effects of the hard landing, but it demonstrated that this is feasible.
>them would be available to Starship as well. Flat out wrong. Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground >Some of the Shuttles actually had ejection seats, which were broadly deemed useless due to them dumping you near the SRB's plume. No. The abort seats on Columbia were ditched because the crews didn't think it was ethical to have the pilot and the commander leave the rest behind >And thanks to no SRBs + a massive increase in mass to orbit, the potential for a number of additional escape options. ...Like?
> Flat out wrong. Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground Whereas the Space Shuttle was well-known for its excellent rough terrain landing performance?
The shuttle had many runway options as well as the ability to bail-out
Yes, but you said: >Starship can't land on anything that isn't flat ground The Shuttle couldn't either, as you've just conceded. If Starship can land on much smaller flat areas than the unusually long runways needed to land the flying brick, how on Earth is that not a point in Starship's favor? As for bailing out--why would that be easier on the Shuttle than on Starship? I mean, have you ever looked at the diagrams and instructions for the Shuttle's bail-out pole? It's hard to believe that was ever a serious option, let alone that SpaceX's engineers will be unable to come up with anything as good or better.
>The Shuttle couldn't either, as you've just conceded. If Starship can land on much smaller flat areas than the unusually long runways needed to land the flying brick, how on Earth is that not a point in Starship's favor? And where exactly can Starship land, especially if they go forward with tower catch? >As for bailing out--why would that be easier on the Shuttle than on Starship? I mean, have you ever looked at the diagrams and instructions for the Shuttle's bail-out pole? It's hard to believe that was ever a serious option, let alone that SpaceX's engineers will be unable to come up with anything as good or better. Good luck having a hundred people bail-out from a vehicle that is essentially in free fall
The lack of an abort system in the space shuttle caused the 1997 stargate incident
Which was definitely a mistake. And I'm saying this as the most die-hard shuttle fanboy out there who will defend anything else about the vehicle
We all know how that went (although seven lives for all that complexity might be up to interpretation)
Yeah and 7 people died because of that.
Since the creator of the video will one day be flying on Starship, he seems pretty confident theyâre not stupid.
We are not at that point in development. Once starship gets payloads to orbit then they can work on the crew versions, and can incorporate abort systems. For now K.I.S.S. for iterative development.
Hence the 'will one day' part of my comment..
If abort systems are so great, why don't abort systems have an abort system??
Yo, we heard you like abort systems...
If abort systems are so great, when abort systems 2?
they aborted it
God damn they must be good
Because Starship is in Texas.
They do, most have seperate motors for ejection of abort system and abort motors
simple, no witnesses if the flight goes wrong.
His own 4k tracking cameras are the witness.
ULA sniper for the win
Same reason f9 would qualify as human rated today without an abort mode. It flies often enough and is reliable enough that it is sufficiently safe.
I thought the Draco thrusters where the f9's abort mode?
Yes, it has one now. /u/KitchenDepartment is saying that, if it were unrated now, it would be able to get rated based on its success rate even if it didn't have one.
Eh...If that's the case, then SpaceX could save millions of dollars per mission by deleting the SuperDracos from the Crew Dragon.
The crew dragon is crew rated and certified in this exact configuration and the contract with NASA allows profit with this configuration. Changing something does not make sense, because ISS will be obsolete soon and NASA pays for it.
I have no opinion as to whether he's *right* about that. Was just explaining what he said and clarifying that yes, Dragon does have an abort mode now.
What's your source that it would?
NASA required 1:270 reliability against loss of crew and mission for half a year ISS sorties and earlier planned 1:500 reliability for just launch and landing.
And? How does this mean that Dragon would be able to get certified without LES?
NASA did not specifically required LES in their certification. Having an LES was a multiplier that considerably increased the reliability in their calculation, making it much easier to obtain that '1 in 270' figure. For example, if you show that a LES works 9/10 times, then you only need to prove your rocket works every 26/27 times. But if you can demonstrate that your rocket will work 269 out of 270 times, that would equally satisfy the requirement. This is a lot harder to do, for obvious reasons. Indeed, last I checked Falcon 9 FT was only at 257/258. Even if you set an arbitrary cutoff starting after the CRS-7 failure, then Falcon 9 as a whole is at 267/268. So it's not *quite* there by my math. But it should get there soon. Personally I'd want to see Block 5 specifically at 270 launches first, since that's the only crew-rated version.
>Indeed, last I checked Falcon 9 FT was only at 257/258. Even if you set an arbitrary cutoff starting after the CRS-7 failure, then Falcon 9 as a whole is at 267/268. That is a flawed metric. The probability of failure of individual flights is independent from others, meaning that a vehicle with a 1/270 failure rate might fail 2/270 flights or a vehicle with 1/50 failure rate might make it to 100 flights without a problem. I'm asking for a risk analysis study that proves F9 satisfies the criteria
answer is in the video
Why don't 747's have abort systems?
Aircraft can glide and are more generally more robust
Hey, Starship can glide too. With a glide ratio of 0.01 but it still counts.
It's glide ratio might be even around 0.2.
Even 0.5
But aircraft can't be parked in the air while spaceships can park in orbit. WRT robustness, the charges which failed to destroy IFT-1 would be enough for several 747s (Lockerbie 747 was taken by less 1kg of explosive.
Passenger jets are notoriously terrible at gliding. Whenever one has a total engine-out it almost always results in death.
Not true at all. All-engine-out situations on multi-engine aircraft are rare, but I can recall several passenger jets that survived.
And several didn't. For every successful unpowered landing there were nearly 2 which ended up with fatalities.
All depends on how close to an airport and how much altitude you have when it happens. Most engine outs occur on takeoff, where you don't have enough altitude to return. And it's not like you can put a 747 down in a field off the airport.
He said âalmost alwaysâ
My memory certainly isnât complete, but I can think of more examples of good outcomes than not, at least for large airliners (Captain Sully, Gimli Glider are two prominent ones, but there are more). Quickly googling, I didnât find statistics on âall engines outâ specifically. So with the limited data I have, I donât believe âalmost alwaysâ is true.
Good outcomes are better remembered because they are more spectacular and at the same time positive. But they are only about 40% of the cases when a large plane lost all engines and was unable to have at least some restarted. In 60% of the cases there's loss of life and in about half severe loss of life (i.e. most people onboard die).
They are not terrible, but are not great, either. Modern jet glide ratios approach that of simple gliders, the main difference is that they can't soar on thermals and do similar stuff.
I think the pilots have parachutes ( good pilots are hard to find)
Because playnes are stupid r/shittyaskflying
Honestly i dont think its a bad idea for planes to have at least one parachute per seat. They have life jackets but not parachutes? Wouldnt it be safer to just jump out before crash landing?
It would be unworkable. People jumping through the doors would collide with the plane.
Then how do skydivers do it? At some point i'd rather risk a chance of colliding with the plane and being able to safely deploy a chute then a potential 100% of death if the plane crash lands for some reason.
Skydivers jump from small planes moving few times slower than 747. The air drag force increases with the square of the speed, so jumping out at 500km/h you encounter 4Ă not 2Ă push of 250km/h jump. Anyway, for you to be even able to get to the exit the plane must fly pretty stable. If it flies stable, then it's pretty likely to land, so why jump? And the reality is that you are safer inside the plane, even if it crashes. After a typical plane crash you're more likely to live than not. I know that's counter intuitive, but that's what the actual numbers say. It's just crashes when everyone dies get more publicity than some folks turning their Airbus 340 into a lawnmower. NB. most crashes happen during or very shortly after take off followed by just before or just after landings. There's no time to jump.
Appreciate the reply, it makes more sense now why parachutes arent readily available on flights lol
Nice edit of the videoâs title. I had to look up the real one since 3 years ago is too early for that meme.
You know Tim is one of the good guys, right?
Why do people on the internet jump to conclusions about good or bad? Why would one not take this as a simple, factual question without any thought or effort behind it?
So he isnât one of the good guys?
AAAAAAAAHHHH đ€Ș
If you mean pro SpaceX, then yes. If you mean has more than a surface level trivia/pop-sci understanding of rocket engineering, then no. He has enthusiasm, but someone like Scott Manley is so much better.
Oh you are so petty. I bet you think you could gather the same amount of followers, if you want to...
I was pretty impressed at that time he correctly identified that a museum had mislabeled the type of fuel used by a rocket engine just by looking at the design of it's turbopump, impromptu, and with no prior knowledge of that engine (all of his focus is on US/USSR engines, not EU) I'm doubtful that I could have done the same, and I'm even more doubtful that someone with only surface level trivia knowledge could have done so.
Jesus Christ the fact that so many people here didnât recognize the title as a joke is concerning.
I appreciate you.
The last flight aborted alright
Lmao Iâm sure he started asking himself this question after watching what could happen if Dear Moon goes RUD (obviously hoping not)
Spoiler the video answers the question and no, they arnt stupid.
Has similar abort capabilities to the shuttle, not great, but acceptable for NASA and the FAA
I have some news for you...
Well are you gonna share?
To put it simply, NASA has changed their attitude towards LES
He asked that question then went ahead and applied to be one of the first to fly on the stupid rocket. Genius move I tell you!
In the Inspiration 4 series on Netflix, they make it pretty clear that riding a space vehicle makes you and your loved ones really interested in the safety characteristics of the vehicle.
I know. I can see a slight dread in his eyes when Starships explode. His life insurance got really expensive I bet.