SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#41

Post by Layke1123 » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #13

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.

Challenger? What's your point? That Russia didn't beat the US into space? I thought the west at least accepted that fact. Or do you just have to believe the US is ALWAYS "superior"?

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#42

Post by rurban » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

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.

It's more funny that both primarily used thousands of Germans as their rocket technicians, and both german parties used their german style, based on engineers as heads.

This all changed with Lyndon Johnson taking over, getting rid of the Germans, introducing the well known inefficient NASA/gov-style management style known from the Shuttle era, and moved the technicians out of Alabama to Houston. This was the anti-modern democratic approach.

SpaceX simply went back to the old modern style, which worked well for the US and Russia.

The trick was not using smart people, but experienced engineers in control, and not fresh anti-engineer PM's out of college. Everybody can control a budget, esp. engineers, but only engineers can control engineering problems.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#43

Post by mongol » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

I am impressed by the camera angles. How do you think they filmed the last parts? With a drone?

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#44

Post by api » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

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.

Also keep in mind that it's already doing what pre-F9 rockets did: go up. The RUDs so far are on landing attempts. Landing is a whole lot harder.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#45

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #14

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.

This was my thought even before launch. SN9 could explode on the pad.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#46

Post by 6nf » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

Another amazing test flight! Can't wait for SN10. I understand they have already started the last step of construction which is fitting the Raptor engines to SN10. Should be ready to fly very soon.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#47

Post by 6nf » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

Diederich wrote: post #7

And that's why you have an assembly line for Starships: https://i.redd.it/dmr9bjhpcee61.jpg (SN9 lacking the RUD symbol in that image of course.)

Also note that BN1 (which is the booster stage) is getting close to completion! I wonder when we'll see one of those fly?

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#48

Post by Layke1123 » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #42

mempko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more funny that both primarily used thousands of Germans as their rocket technicians, and both german parties used their german style, based on engineers as heads. This all changed with Lyndon Johnson taking over, getting rid of the Germans, introducing the well known inefficient NASA/gov-style management style known from the Shuttle era, and moved the technicians out of Alabama to Houston. This was the anti-mod…

I have watched PMs actively contribute nothing to a project by entering false metrics. It really is either you can build something, or you can't and contribute nothing to the project.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#49

Post by NortySpock » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

breatheoften wrote: post #33

Was it camera angle that made it appear to be so perfectly flat (top and bottom of rocket at same altitude) when it was in free fall or was that actually the target free fall orientation?

I presume it was the target orientation since they held it for so long, had they wanted to actively leave that orientation earlier I assume they would have done so.

Especially subsonic I assume their orientation does not matter a whole lot when just trying to fall with max drag.

Not sure how much energy they'll save doing the flip maneuver earlier though, seems like they want max drag as low as they can go, then flip to powered flight at the last moment possible -- and their problem seems to be keeping the engines lit.

Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing

#50

Post by hinkley » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

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:…

The Russians also were fond of “give it more gas”, which SpaceX has also embraced and Elon has called out before. The fuel is a real big piece of the launch cost but it’s far from the largest. If your rocket equation calls for a little extra fuel but in exchange you can use more reliable or at least less exotic parts, just do it.