Meanwhile, Elon is launching robotaxis in the Austin area (I just saw a tweet from a guy getting ready to ride one around and see how it does), and you couldn't pay me a million dollars to sit in one of those death traps.
The video of the explosion and that "WHOOAHH!!" was satisfying to me, but I'd bet investors have had just about enough.
I've been waiting for this, and it was worth the wait!
> These tests are to prepare Starship 37 for the upcoming tenth test flight, which some expect to be as soon as June 29th. But that date will now have to be pushed back because, during this refuelling, a catastrophic explosion destroyed Starship 37.
I was interested in following the links mentioned here:
"Starlink was intended to fund Starship development, but it remains unprofitable and is unlikely to be profitable for a considerable time (read more here). And SpaceX itself has a relatively tiny annual profit (read more here), so it can’t shoulder the costs either."
But in order to read those articles, I would have to subscribe to medium. Having already subscribed to this newsletter, being asked to subscribe to a second publication simply to understand the context of the newsletter I'm reading, is ridiculous.
Musk should stick to destroying infrastructure. Presenting “Xplosion,” the demolition company that rids you of those pesky valuable assets!
The NAZI muskrat is in a downward spiral akin to his 0-10 Starship successful mission record! The Saturn V moon rocket was 13-0, never failed once!!!
Meanwhile, Elon is launching robotaxis in the Austin area (I just saw a tweet from a guy getting ready to ride one around and see how it does), and you couldn't pay me a million dollars to sit in one of those death traps.
The video of the explosion and that "WHOOAHH!!" was satisfying to me, but I'd bet investors have had just about enough.
I've been waiting for this, and it was worth the wait!
> These tests are to prepare Starship 37 for the upcoming tenth test flight, which some expect to be as soon as June 29th. But that date will now have to be pushed back because, during this refuelling, a catastrophic explosion destroyed Starship 37.
Should be Starship 36 in both instances, I think?
I was interested in following the links mentioned here:
"Starlink was intended to fund Starship development, but it remains unprofitable and is unlikely to be profitable for a considerable time (read more here). And SpaceX itself has a relatively tiny annual profit (read more here), so it can’t shoulder the costs either."
But in order to read those articles, I would have to subscribe to medium. Having already subscribed to this newsletter, being asked to subscribe to a second publication simply to understand the context of the newsletter I'm reading, is ridiculous.