Mainstream news coverage of Starship events

[meekGee]

Wait until a Ship succeeds to a point that it hasn't yet, and see what the coverage is like. Likely positive because of all of the prior failures.

By 'positive', I think you mean crickets.

If we're taking mainstream, real mainstream, then people simply don't care.

I remember some 20 years ago I asked a cousin of mine if there are astronauts right now in space.  Crickets.  I mentioned the space station.  It kinda vaguely rang a bell, but they couldn't tell you anything about it.

So a positive turn in a long term development program?  Come on. I don't expect any reaction.  They get excited when some pop star gets a new girlfriend. Or wears something.

[jstrotha0975]

Mainstream news coverage of SpaceX is basically "Elon bad, Starship blow up again".

[StraumliBlight]

Mainstream news coverage of SpaceX is basically "Elon bad, Starship blow up again".

The Guardian: Inside Elon Musk's plan to rain SpaceX's rocket debris over Hawaii's pristine waters

[catdlr]

Mainstream news coverage of SpaceX is basically "Elon bad, Starship blow up again".

The Guardian: Inside Elon Musk's plan to rain SpaceX's rocket debris over Hawaii's pristine waters

My wife, being from Hawaii, observes that the locals are very sensitive about issues concerning Native Hawaiians' stewardship of their land and marine sanctuaries. They perceive government and large corporations negatively. If SpaceX exacerbated the situation by causing explosions and dropping debris over the Bahamas and the Gulf region, it would not improve matters from their perspective. The Guardian article appears to be merely jumping on the bandwagon to incite the local population.

[SpaceLizard]

As someone who usually appreciates the Guardian's reporting; that article is absurd, and I am very disappointed in them.

[JAFO]

Mainstream news coverage of SpaceX is basically "Elon bad, Starship blow up again".

The Guardian: Inside Elon Musk's plan to rain SpaceX's rocket debris over Hawaii's pristine waters

My wife, being from Hawaii, observes that the locals are very sensitive about issues concerning Native Hawaiians' stewardship of their land and marine sanctuaries. They perceive government and large corporations negatively. If SpaceX exacerbated the situation by causing explosions and dropping debris over the Bahamas and the Gulf region, it would not improve matters from their perspective. The Guardian article appears to be merely jumping on the bandwagon to incite the local population.

The new Jason Momoa mini-series about Hawai'i is only going to flame the fires.

Steve
(Tripler brat)

[meekGee]

The sad thing is that people that care about reasonable causes get manipulated by cynical people who care exactly zero about those causes, but recognize a good mob when they see it.

'Tis a tale twice told.

Play on fears, on anger, on ignorance, and you can get them to get behind flags that are absolutely detrimental to them.

[catdlr]

They assume that every Starship that tries to land does so in pieces.  Grain of Salt time, but gee, the degree that the media tries to alter reality.

SpaceX Cleared to Pollute Sacred Hawaiian Waters?

SOURCE:  FAA Allows SpaceX to Drop Starship Rocket Bits on Sacred Hawaiian Island

SOURCE:  SpaceX rocket debris could land in delicate sites near Hawaii, locals fear

SOURCE:  Government Gives Elon Musk Permission to Detonate Rockets Over a Sacred Hawaiian Island

[steveleach]

The third item on the BBC news home page this morning is "Watch: SpaceX Starship completes successful test flight" (headlines, not just science & technology section).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd0dxg4kxg1o

Just a minimally annotated highlights video.

[JamesH65]

The third item on the BBC news home page this morning is "Watch: SpaceX Starship completes successful test flight" (headlines, not just science & technology section).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd0dxg4kxg1o

Just a minimally annotated highlights video.

Made the BBC Radio 4 news this morning - a fairly accurate piece. On the whole, quite congratulatory.

[thespacecow]

Just putting this here for future reference: U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX

[rsnellenberger]

Just putting this here for future reference: U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX

A full-throated, negative response by Casey Handmer to the NY Times article that starts with this (and gets even more pointed):

"It's absolutely insane that this @nytimes article would quote Doug Loverro..."

https://x.com/cjhandmer/status/1969634998144888999?s=46&t=YfgSf-ABLSUtXo_h1DyebA

[meekGee]

Just putting this here for future reference: U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX

It's not even bias. It's just outright manufactured rage.  What a waste.

[Nonexistence]

It is not a good look nyt

[ZachF]

Just putting this here for future reference: U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX

[thespacecow]

Another naysayer emerged: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-bet-on-spacexs-starship-may-give-moon-race-to-china/

Inside NASA, senior leadership has long understood the agency stood slim odds of beating China’s target date for a moon landing, says former agency chief scientist James Green. “It was obvious to us more than a year ago that we’re not going to make 2030. Now why is that? Because we’ve got a very complicated system.”

That last hurdle, safely landing a SpaceX Starship HLS (Human Landing System) spacecraft, carrying two astronauts, upright on the moon, particularly troubles Green. “We have not done the analysis, in my opinion, to determine if you could actually land a massive Starship on the moon,” he says.

Many are hoping for a “Plan B” alternative to the current Artemis moon landing architecture. Whatever form that plan takes, it will have to start with the SLS rocket, Green says.

And NASA could build a simpler, modern-day, Apollo-style lunar module landing craft, Green suggests, as an alternative to waiting for a Starship HLS. That might provide work at NASA centers such as Alabama’s Marshall Space Flight Center, which would suffer job losses as future SLS missions are turned off.

[Oersted]

"Not done the analysis to land a massive Starship on the Moon".

- The "analysis" is called doing it multiple times with uncrewed ships until you see if it is feasible. Ground-truth data in a hardware-rich program: the SpaceX way.

Don't bet against the company that is landing F9's on barges at sea and SuperHeavies between chopsticks.

Old NASA is suggesting landing two astronauts in a golf-cart sized lander. Well, that was done 50 years ago. Let's not repeat that. It made some sense for the first manned landings on the Moon, but surely not for the follow-up half a century later.

[Twark_Main]

I'd love to verify the "analysis" (purely technical I'm sure) behind

it will have to start with the SLS rocket

[Roy_H]

I'd love to verify the "analysis" (purely technical I'm sure) behind

it will have to start with the SLS rocket

Of course it is purely political. NASA wouldn't even be required to go to the moon if China hadn't announced intention to go there. They could have found some other use for SLS.

[Twark_Main]

I'd love to verify the "analysis" (purely technical I'm sure) behind

it will have to start with the SLS rocket

Of course it is purely political. NASA wouldn't even be required to go to the moon if China hadn't announced intention to go there. They could have found some other use for SLS.

In the grand tradition of NASA post-Apollo HLVs, the "use" is to skip all those pesky manned missions and go right to cancellation and rusting in a museum.

By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings!   


No way you'll see that mentioned in mainstream Starship coverage. It's like being whisked to a parallel universe where NASA heavy lift programs are infamously successful and on-time...