> So the Starship program is clearly making progress. But is it getting to where it needs to be? Three explosions in three flights are hard to ignore.
This is the dumbest statement I've read so far about Starship.
This is the dumbest statement I've read so far about Starship.
Or alternativatly, it's deliberate sensationalism and clickbait.
It's for people who do believe that 3 explosion's show trouble. Autor first "agrees" with that, and then explains why it doesn't matter, and SpacX is doing thing right.
It's long form of "Yeah good point , but how about ..."
If it's so dumb for anyone to even ask if three explosions is a problem, why did you do this? Why didn't you just write "Asking if three explosions is a problem is a dumb question to even ask."? Why was it necessary to introduce supporting evidence?
Could it be that you think it's a dumb question because you know these facts? And the article author's job, as a journalist, is to assume, accurately, that most people don't know these facts. Most people are not SpaceX super-fans who have been closely following the test programme. Many will just hear "SpaceX blew up a third rocket" and wonder if things are going wrong, and the author's job, as a professional journalist is to inform those people.
"Hard to ignore" is not the same as "bad", as the rest of the article makes clear.