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

SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#181

Post by illegalsmile »

ahoka wrote: post #158
LorenDB wrote: post #135

My mind is so blown. Definitely disappointing, but let's be honest: this is a win for SpaceX, given that this was the first fully integrated flight test of a very complex, very unproven vehicle. (Yes, the ship has flown before, but this was the booster's first flight.) Did anybody else notice the Apollo-style maneuver to avoid the launch tower?

How could this be a success? It was a catastrophic failure. Sorry but bullshitting releases only works in software.

When SpaceX says their goals were to clear the launch tower, collect data and nothing more this seems like a huge success.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#182

Post by perihelions »

mabbo wrote: post #61

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one success. But it costs $2B per launch (and climbing) and has taken 12 years to get here. Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. Starship will launch a half a dozen "failures" before they achieve…

Interesting thought: Starship just expended more engines on a *test* (39?) than I believe the entire SLS program has budgeted through the end of the 2020's (16 from shuttle + 18 new = 34?).

edit: Never mind, it's slightly less – see the comment below correcting me. The SLS program has 40, not 34, RS-25's.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#183

Post by theK »

mcculley wrote: post #104
simondotau wrote: post #6

Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.

> "Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad." I am confused. Everything I read before the launch said that it was intended to reach orbital altitude and make it around the Earth.

Well, even if your success factors are waaaay early, you have to account for the fringe event that everything keeps working out. So yeah, they filed a flight plan because theoretically the ship could get there.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#184

Post by throwntoday »

pohl wrote: post #122
mabbo wrote: post #61

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one success. But it costs $2B per launch (and climbing) and has taken 12 years to get here. Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. Starship will launch a half a dozen "failures" before they achieve…

Well said. On the other hand, the SLS — having a launch escape system and not requiring sophisticated acrobatics in order to reach land safely — is totally the ship I'd rather be on.

SLS will never reach land, you'll be splashing down in the middle of the ocean, stuck inside a tin can getting battered by waves until NASA can scramble their limited resources to get you.

The booster presumably like you will have been thrown into the ocean. Very wasteful system.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#185

Post by 6d6b73 »

Coffeewine wrote: post #169
ahoka wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could this be a success? It was a catastrophic failure. Sorry but bullshitting releases only works in software.

It didn't blow up on the pad. They'll be happy to blow up dozens of these, hopefully incrementally perfecting the design each time.

That's not engineering. What they did is identical to developers copying code from SO and running it to see if it works.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#186

Post by Uptrenda »

It looked like a bunch of parts had fallen off during take-off. Not to bring up a tragedy so casually: but I'm reminded of when a piece of foam damaged an insulation tile on Challenger. It does speak to the robustness of their design that it was able to make it to separation without issues.

I do kind of agree with simondotau, too. Saying that the rocket just 'failed' doesn't take into account what they did get right. I think it's kind of disappointing that the media chose to take the opportunity to put down everyone involved in this activity for a cheap click. What they're doing is important and tremendously complex. This kind of thing just makes me hate the media even more.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#187

Post by SaintGhurka »

ahoka wrote: post #158
LorenDB wrote: post #135

My mind is so blown. Definitely disappointing, but let's be honest: this is a win for SpaceX, given that this was the first fully integrated flight test of a very complex, very unproven vehicle. (Yes, the ship has flown before, but this was the booster's first flight.) Did anybody else notice the Apollo-style maneuver to avoid the launch tower?

How could this be a success? It was a catastrophic failure. Sorry but bullshitting releases only works in software.

If you watched the spacex youtube feed there's no denying it was a smashing success. The employees were clearly celebrating even after the Rapid Unplanned Disassembly.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#190

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #123
mabbo wrote: post #61

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one success. But it costs $2B per launch (and climbing) and has taken 12 years to get here. Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. Starship will launch a half a dozen "failures" before they achieve…

The test was a massive success. So happy to see starship clear the towers. The largest rocket ever built, larger than the Saturn V. Are you kidding me?

If I'm tasked with recording test data for x, y, and z and I only record x, is that a success? Now I need to launch another to try for the y, and z.

Edit: What would an unsuccessful test look like then?

Post reply on HN