• Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Roscosmos doesn’t consider clearing the launch tower to be a success. There is value in continuing to use proven technology.

    • AngryMob@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Youre comparing a testing goal to an operational goal? How the hell is that even relevant?

      We’d all still be using steam engines with your logic, because the moment a gasoline engine blew up in testing we shoulda just given up! And jet engines for aircraft? What a waste of time!

      C’mon. You gotta be smarter than that.

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Eh? Both the Soyuz and Falcon 9 are proven spacecraft. That one abort was a fluke and the crew survived without injury. I’m sure they’ve put in some effort to make sure that abort won’t happen again.

    • becausechemistry@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      clearing the launch tower during a test launch with an experimental rocket that has no payload and no humans aboard is success

      managing to get into the right orbit without aborting using a rocket that’s launched since the 60s and is lit with giant matchsticks is success

      You, an idiot: “these are comparable”