Tim Cortesi 🟡

👦🏻👧🏻 Dad | 🏫 Higher Ed. CTO | 🧑🏻‍💻 Software Developer | 🚀 Space Enthusiast

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@LikaSalinas @CaseyPutsch Who do I vote for if I think both of these things are equally stupid?

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@DaSteeringWheel @Echo5550 @nz482648 You left out the giant crack in Neutron's interstage and Starship should be at the bottom of the Indian ocean.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@vinceisbullish Because it was way too high to begin with. It should settle around 90 or so.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@yenolom07 @arya_stark47 If anything the first step looks too low. The extra height can only help

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@netz0com @justalexoki It happens. You combine a massive critical decades old code base that nobody understands with management that is happy to ignore it and let the one quiet dude keep it on life support, and this is the result.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kazoku886 @TansuYegen It is mechanical not chemical.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@luatunes @Justin_Poore So they'll say all this stuff about intentionality and subverting expectations, but the reality is that until we can find a more energy dense way to efficiently store/recover electrical energy, all electric cars are going to look effectively the same.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@luatunes @Justin_Poore The problem is that when you're designing a vehicle to minimize drag, physics demands that it look like a Prius. And since batteries are WAAY less energy dense than gasoline, you can't really ignore coefficient of drag without sacrificing range or adding a ton of battery weight.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@McClain916 @alexuxxxxx @Arcfunmi One man's oxidation is another man's patina.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@BozackDakilla @woadismeRN @SawyerMerritt No kidding. That was option 1. They went with option 2.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@BozackDakilla @woadismeRN @SawyerMerritt Option one: leave a rocket the size of a 15 story building stuck in low earth orbit massively contributing to space junk. Option two: drop it into the Indian Ocean . They attempted option two and succeeded. Lots of things went wrong during the test, but this wasn't one of them.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@BozackDakilla @woadismeRN @SawyerMerritt My car is also reusable. But I doubt it would survive being dropped into the Indian Ocean either.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kmbecker25 @RocketLab @spacepat_o They explained manufacturing deficiencies during the Q4 2025 earnings call. They outsourced the manufacturing of the 1st batch of parts to a 3rd party where parts were built by hand. That was clearly a mistake, but is zero indication that the in-house stuff will be defective.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kmbecker25 @RocketLab @spacepat_o Yeah, I agree that this is definitely a setback and I expect that stock will (rightly) drop next week as a result. But at the point where you start drawing analogies to OceanGate because "carbon fiber", you've completely lost me.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kmbecker25 @RocketLab @spacepat_o If you're saying that Neutron wouldn't make a very good submersible, I wholeheartedly agree. Fortunately they're headed to space, not to the Titanic.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kmbecker25 @RocketLab @spacepat_o Not really. If the next one performs as well as this one, they know they have a 25% safety margin. If it performs better, they could have a 50%+ safety margin. Either way, they're in good shape. Just don't dial the can crusher test stand up to 11 with the next one.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@kmbecker25 @RocketLab @spacepat_o If this part was built by hand and failed at 125% loads, the next one (made by their automated carbon fiber robot) should perform quite a bit better. When their 2nd stage tank failed late last year, that was the explanation given.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@ericgkrehbiel @Yrouel86 Nobody really knows as there are still a ton of variables that can change that number. @smartereveryday gave a presentation 2 years ago https://t.co/cP0gOuOVpp suggesting 6-12+. @Erdayastronaut shows the math for 15 in his video earlier this week: https://t.co/JbeGohyZJu

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@ericgkrehbiel @Yrouel86 Not true. Getting a single starship to the moon requires ~15 orbital refueling missions. Unless they're planning on throwing away a dozen starships for every one lunar mission, rapid reusability of starship is absolutely critical.

[Tim Cortesi 🟡 @timcortesi]

@shadowcrewtroll @KruxJacobs @DrChrisCombs Carbon brakes in an Boeing 747 are good for about 2,000 landings. They are technically consumable, but their life is so lengthy that they barely factor into the incremental cost of each flight. The starship heat shield will need similarly low levels of degradation over time.