The development timeline has been so strange.
Falcon 9 was made so quickly compared to Starship.
I would have expected a working rocket would have been quick - especially given they have a wealth of experience making the first one. And then I would have expected a protracted period of nailing down the landing and reuse
And yet.. just getting this thing to orbit has been seemingly as hard as catching it coming down
Does anyone in the know have a good assessment of what's up? Did they just take bigger risks making the Falcon 9? Is the workforce burnt out?
From the descriptions and how they speak, they don't seem interested in getting to orbit unless it's reusable. But it seems like a giant non-reusable rocket would already be a huge win. It's at least shut down the ridiculous SLS program and freeup a bunch of funding
You may want to check your premise. Just because you weren't aware of the early stages of Falcon development doesn't mean it went quickly. Not even accounting for the fact this is orders of magnitude more complex and will be a huge leap forward in space logisstics if they can get it (and the reusability) to work
This study (and many others, depending on the cosmic scales they use) mainly use Supernovas of Type Ia. I.e. the energy emitted by the supernova of a binary acreccion star, which is a star that is capturing the mass from another start that is very nearby and increasing its mass until it collapses into itself, increases temperature up to the point it starts fusing helium, and goes supernova with all the added energy.
That was (and still is now, with some corrections we found since middle last century) supposed to be the same everywhere. Problem is, we keep finding new corrections to it - like this study claims.
That is in fact the big claim of this study (ignore the universe expansion part), that they found a new correction to the Supernova of type Ia luminosity. It's a very big claim and extremely interesting if confirmed. But, like all big claims, it needs a big confirmation. I'm a bit skeptic TBH.
Out of curiosity, what data are you drawing or what qualifications do you have that support your skepticism over three different modes of analysis (as well as pretty much every recent development in the field) supporting this claim: