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

SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 317 posts

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#11

Post by mempko »

the-dude wrote: post #10
mempko wrote: post #6

When you look at the history of the space race between Soviets vs USA, one thing that is clear is the approach used by both countries to engineer their craft were very different. The Soviets would do design by testing and blow up many rockets and gather data vs the USA which would be more up-front about it's design and design testing before gong live. SpaceX clearly took the Soviet's approach to rocket design. EDIT:…

[flagged]

It's funny because the Soviets did it right, in that they funded smart people and gave them control. The Nasa's approach was to have people create proposals and get approval for funds.

We have forgotten that the "fund smart people and let them do what they want" is the best approach. Look at Xerox Parc, Bell Labs, etc. Nasa's modern approach with SpaceX and other companies seems to reflect these hard learned lessons.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#12

Post by _Microft »

Diederich wrote: post #5

Failure with one of the engines on re-light: https://twitter.com/MurkyWanders/status/1356703469986586626 "I bet they needed that." As others have noted, SN10 is standing by. Somewhat uncomfortably close by: https://i.imgur.com/F9rsBbD.png It's so exciting to be a spectator of these events.

SN10, wenplop?

The debris does not seem to come from next to the failing rocket engine but from the outer wall next to the engine that was not used in the landing attempt. It appears first shortly before the clock shows 6:21.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#13

Post by evgen »

mempko wrote: post #6

When you look at the history of the space race between Soviets vs USA, one thing that is clear is the approach used by both countries to engineer their craft were very different. The Soviets would do design by testing and blow up many rockets and gather data vs the USA which would be more up-front about it's design and design testing before gong live. SpaceX clearly took the Soviet's approach to rocket design. EDIT:…

While the US had better tech and improved design they all tested the shit out of things before going live and then ran live tests on unmanned rockets, many of which exploded quick spectacularly. Soyuz might be safe now, but that safety was paid for by many near-misses and in several cases in cosmonaut blood. Your statement regarding US vs Soviet approach to the space race is simply wrong.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#14

Post by Florin_Andrei »

Diederich wrote: post #5

Failure with one of the engines on re-light: https://twitter.com/MurkyWanders/status/1356703469986586626 "I bet they needed that." As others have noted, SN10 is standing by. Somewhat uncomfortably close by: https://i.imgur.com/F9rsBbD.png It's so exciting to be a spectator of these events.

> SN10 is standing by. Somewhat uncomfortably close by

That was my immediate comment at the end. Pretty confident they are.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#15

Post by Florin_Andrei »

tectonic wrote: post #3

This is why we test. (In this case, header tank helium pressurization and more thermal tiles.) At least they didn't hit SN10! Summary tomorrow in this week's Orbital Index ( https://orbitalindex.com ).

Well, they popped a bunch of Falcon 9s until they got those right.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#16

Post by ericd »

d_silin wrote: post #2

Illustration how "move fast and break things" in aerospace domain works.

Honestly, my main takeaway from this testing and Falcon 9 dev has been that we should be doing a whole lot more of that than we have been, at least until there are human passengers. The contrast in rate of progress with eg SLS is stunning.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#17

Post by bobo_legos »

mempko wrote: post #6

When you look at the history of the space race between Soviets vs USA, one thing that is clear is the approach used by both countries to engineer their craft were very different. The Soviets would do design by testing and blow up many rockets and gather data vs the USA which would be more up-front about it's design and design testing before gong live. SpaceX clearly took the Soviet's approach to rocket design. EDIT:…

Does anyone know some good books that explore the space race? I've read Carrying the Fire(which was excellent), but it doesn't touch much on what the Soviets were doing.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#18

Post by the-dude »

mempko wrote: post #11
the-dude wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's funny because the Soviets did it right, in that they funded smart people and gave them control. The Nasa's approach was to have people create proposals and get approval for funds. We have forgotten that the "fund smart people and let them do what they want" is the best approach. Look at Xerox Parc, Bell Labs, etc. Nasa's modern approach with SpaceX and other companies seems to reflect these hard learned lessons.

IIRC Zhe Germans were pretty hands-off with von Braun as well.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#20

Post by codefreakxff »

ericd wrote: post #16
d_silin wrote: post #2

Illustration how "move fast and break things" in aerospace domain works.

Honestly, my main takeaway from this testing and Falcon 9 dev has been that we should be doing a whole lot more of that than we have been, at least until there are human passengers. The contrast in rate of progress with eg SLS is stunning.

Well. Yes. It appears to be a fully functioning launch vehicle and just as reusable as its predecessors, don’t see much downside in making the landings more “interesting”. When they work out the dynamics of it then they really have something that will revolutionize launches
Post reply on HN