jdashdoubleu

jdashdoubleu t1_jdea5zv wrote

Why doesn't the article make any mention of Max-Q? Why doesn't the article make any mention of what Relativity Space had to say about it, perhaps on their social media? Why does the article appear rife with language like "fails just three minutes into flight", "far short of orbit", "as it turned out, the first stage did it's job...", and "although the upper stage malfunctioned and didn't reach orbit", when there's actually major milestone, and a lot of successes you can point to from this launch event.

From Relativity Space's Twitter - "Today’s launch proved Relativity’s 3D-printed rocket technologies that will enable our next vehicle, Terran R. We successfully made it through Max-Q, the highest stress state on our printed structures. This is the biggest proof point for our novel additive manufacturing approach. Today is a huge win, with many historic firsts. We also progressed through Main Engine Cutoff and Stage Separation. We will assess flight data and provide public updates over the coming days. #GoodLuckHadFun"

Why is that the AP is framing this is a loss when this is a pretty big milestone in their work?

Is this NOT exciting!?

I think you can do better.

11