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

SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#51

Post by myself248 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #40
agumonkey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how it is when you're on site, it's hard to appreciate the scale on video

It’s surreal. We observed from the Canaveral AFB entrance observation bleachers, and I think it’s easier to appreciate if you can get closer to the landing zone pads (either with KSC’s “Feel The Heat” tour tickets or being a SpaceX employee).

Oooo, I haven't tried the AFB entrance location yet.

My first launch/landing was an F9 which I saw from the Port Canaveral causeway, and I've now seen FH launches/landings from both the "feel the heat" banana creek viewing area, and from the employees-and-friends bleachers at the turning-basin next to the VAB.

The "Feel the Heat" tickets are fairly close to the launch, but pretty far from the landing. Even the turn basin is equidistant from the launch, and only a smidge closer to the landing.

LZ1 is just really far away no matter what, but I think the causeway actually affords a better view of the landing. It's definitely worse for the launch, though.

Bein' a Detroiter and only catching a launch when I'm able to travel for it, I think I've been lucky so far!

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#52

Post by ogre_codes »

bo0tzz wrote: post #11
tomp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they're deliberate? Like if you're 100% you can land in "normal" circumstances, maybe try perturbing the parameters or input data a bit... to stress-test your algos, as if simulating wind, earthquake, different planet's gravity, different atmosphere, different rocket, engine failure...

Absolutely. Musk has openly shared that at spacex, failure is just a chance to learn. Successful landings don't teach you much, so the launch of an old core like this one (4 previous landings) is a good chance to experiment a bit.

A failure is a change to learn, but a success is a chance to save 20 million dollars. Musk is philosophical about failures, but it's not a thing he's chasing.

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#54

Post by saberdancer »

fauxrockpet wrote: post #16

When are people gonna start talking about the elephant in the room? There is no publicly available data that points to reusable rockets being safe for human return.

There was no publicly available data that pointed humans can safely go to space and return inside a cannonball, eject and land via parachute yet Gagarin did just that.

Every new step in space race was pushing the limits of what was thought possible. Of course no one will take on these type of risks today but with enough testing the risk can be reduced and mitigated.

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#55

Post by shadowgovt »

I'm hoping we get an info-dump into the public channel on the nature of the recovery failure.

Footage from the drone ship before they cut away due to no landing to show indicated the sea had larger swells than I remember seeing on previous attempts and some water striking the camera lens from somewhere. I wonder if they aborted the landing because they couldn't guarantee the drone would have the right attitude to receive the rocket at time of touchdown?

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#56

Post by shadowgovt »

tomp wrote: post #9
bolasanibk wrote: post #4

SpaceX has made landing so routine that now failed landings are news.

I wonder if they're deliberate? Like if you're 100% you can land in "normal" circumstances, maybe try perturbing the parameters or input data a bit... to stress-test your algos, as if simulating wind, earthquake, different planet's gravity, different atmosphere, different rocket, engine failure...

Based on the seas today as seen from the drone-ship camera, I wouldn't be surprised if they're willing to launch in conditions sub-optimal for recovery (but sufficient for launch) because the data they gather from a launch failure is still valuable and hitting a launch window is worth more to them than missing it and recovering stage 1.

Not quite the same as intentionally launching to crash, but it has a notional morphism to the site-reliability-engineering concept of "burning your error budget on a high-reliability system to satisfy other tradeoffs."

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#57

Post by dwaltrip »

fauxrockpet wrote: post #16

When are people gonna start talking about the elephant in the room? There is no publicly available data that points to reusable rockets being safe for human return.

This is what it looks like to be part way along the path to human safety.

There is a ton of work ahead, but we are going in the right direction.

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#58

Post by zionic »

jacquesm wrote: post #30

Please all keep in mind that the primary mission is a success and that landing the booster is an optimization , not a failure if it does not work. A failure is when the primary mission fails, everything else is a success.

Also:

1) This was this particular booster's 4th flight

2) This particular orbit was stated to be at the very edge of F9's performance.

Re: SpaceX first stage landing failed for Starlink-4 launch

#60

Post by dtparr »

jessriedel wrote: post #17
dtparr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's 48 successful landings after the 1st as they kept mentioning today would be the 50th successful core to land. (Which counts each booster separately, including the FH side cores, but you must have been doing that too to get to 48 since the first)

I'm giving the number of successful landing after the first successful drone-ship landing, which doesn't include the first successful pad landing. (This seemed a more fair way to count because drone-ship landing are harder; if you start counting after the first successful pad landing you include two failed drone ship landing which should be considered still total experiments.)

Dammit. I read that 3 times before commenting and still missed that point of emphasis. Touché
Post reply on HN