Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 265 posts

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#41

Post by bborud »

kev009 wrote: post #34

I had an unpopular opinion amongst friends that this thing looked like a total piece of shit, like a movie prop. They were using rented lifts and cranes to assemble it in the field. Clock right twice a day or maybe there's a reason everything about Apollo spacecraft was meticulously assembled.

Depends on what they're testing.

Every single one of my electronics prototypes look like shit. About one five of them produce smoke and burn marks. Every twentieth does something dramatically unexpected (usually entertaining).

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#43

Post by brmgb »

CydeWeys wrote: post #37
Retric wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rockets are designed to have a vastly lower margin of safety. If they never fail in testing that’s a sign you’re over engineering it and sacrificing cargo capacity, which is a bad thing. That said, these failures should be uncommon.

Starship needs to be reusable dozens of times, with no refit between launches (only refueling). Fuel is cheap; the vehicle needs to survive. It also needs to be reliable enough to carry people. They're not using razor-thin safety margins on it.

Fuel is not cheap. Fuel is heavy and payload reduction is money lost.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#44

Post by JshWright »

kev009 wrote: post #34

I had an unpopular opinion amongst friends that this thing looked like a total piece of shit, like a movie prop. They were using rented lifts and cranes to assemble it in the field. Clock right twice a day or maybe there's a reason everything about Apollo spacecraft was meticulously assembled.

Starhopper looked just as "rough and ready" but completed a successful test flight a few months back.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#45

Post by JshWright »

brmgb wrote: post #43
CydeWeys wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship needs to be reusable dozens of times, with no refit between launches (only refueling). Fuel is cheap; the vehicle needs to survive. It also needs to be reliable enough to carry people. They're not using razor-thin safety margins on it.

Fuel is not cheap. Fuel is heavy and payload reduction is money lost.

Fuel is very cheap. SpaceX has built their whole business around the idea that it's worth trading payload for re-usability.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#46

Post by Klathmon »

kev009 wrote: post #34

I had an unpopular opinion amongst friends that this thing looked like a total piece of shit, like a movie prop. They were using rented lifts and cranes to assemble it in the field. Clock right twice a day or maybe there's a reason everything about Apollo spacecraft was meticulously assembled.

I have a feeling that they could blow up another dozen of these and still be spending less than doing it the "traditional" way of in cleanrooms and the VFAB building.

This was a prototype that they've publicly said was most likely never to reach orbit, they are building this stuff right now to learn, test, and prove that their design works and find improvements that can be made.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#47

Post by irrational »

cyrux004 wrote: post #40
kev009 wrote: post #34

I had an unpopular opinion amongst friends that this thing looked like a total piece of shit, like a movie prop. They were using rented lifts and cranes to assemble it in the field. Clock right twice a day or maybe there's a reason everything about Apollo spacecraft was meticulously assembled.

I wish more smart people like you worked there.

Well, it's not like this is rocket science. Oh, wait...

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#48

Post by inetknght »

brmgb wrote: post #43
CydeWeys wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship needs to be reusable dozens of times, with no refit between launches (only refueling). Fuel is cheap; the vehicle needs to survive. It also needs to be reliable enough to carry people. They're not using razor-thin safety margins on it.

Fuel is not cheap. Fuel is heavy and payload reduction is money lost.

Fuel is cheap. Spaceships are not.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#49

Post by cududa »

JshWright wrote: post #35
cracker_jacks wrote: post #9

Is the Starship Mk1 more structurally sound than it looks? From a first glance and having no knowledge of its design, it looks like an empty soda can that would deform at the slightest disturbance. And the way it crumpled in the video doesn't seem far off from what I would expect.

You're not wrong that Starship has very thin walls, but they're actually quite thick compared to some rockets. There are rockets in use today that have to be pressurized to avoid collapsing under their own weight.

Any lead on where I can read on starship technical docs? Things like wall width

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#50

Post by cududa »

cyrux004 wrote: post #40
kev009 wrote: post #34

I had an unpopular opinion amongst friends that this thing looked like a total piece of shit, like a movie prop. They were using rented lifts and cranes to assemble it in the field. Clock right twice a day or maybe there's a reason everything about Apollo spacecraft was meticulously assembled.

I wish more smart people like you worked there.

Yes because without this dude they would’ve never invented self landing reusable rockets
Post reply on HN