Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

apnews.com

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#211
post #8

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&t=2920s (the cheering is actually really funny cause the launch was already a success)

> clearing the tower was all we hoped

All, really ? What about the flight plan ?

I like the American philosophy to see the good part of experiences even when thinks don’t go as planned, but IMHO I feel like it's drifting more and more from « there’s good in failure » to « let’s call everything a success ». May be wrong, just my European point of view through the transatlantic optic fiber.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#213

When it started doing cartwheels and the announcer said "beginning the flip for stage separation" I was like "WTF does that mean? That can't be nominal!"

Nah it's the nominal KSP launch trajectory. You forget to add first stage fins, launch up to the gravity turn, do the cartwheel, separate and continue to orbit. Seems like they forgot to check their staging though.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#214

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

Cause space billionaire man: bad. But seriously what a terrible title. This was a huge accomplishment in engineering, getting it this far up.

No, because normal people see a huge explosion and think "well, that didn't go to plan." It has nothing to do with space billionaire man: bad.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#215

When it started doing cartwheels and the announcer said "beginning the flip for stage separation" I was like "WTF does that mean? That can't be nominal!"

More info on why that's necessary here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17878/why-does-the...

Edit: "that" = one flip; not the many we saw today.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story/thread gets my upvote because it is by far the least click-bait headline I saw in a quick scan of /new. I will disagree with you though and say that the rocket stage separation failed to work. And this occurred a few minutes after launching. What would your headline be?

Starship achieves liftoff, but fails to stick the landing.

It did some pretty sick acrobatics.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#219
post #160

This was pretty much expected. This flight was to gather data and not much else.

I hope it wasn't hydraulic steering that failed, because that's the part that was already obsolete = nothing to learn. Ah well.

It didn't destroy the launch tower, and that's what counts!

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#220
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is pretty hyperbolic. In the shuttle era, these contingencies were thought of and planned for. The amount of preparation NASA would do before shuttle launches was incredible, including flying medical and rescue teams to the chosen launch abort sites.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Tran...

"Preparations of TAL sites took four to five days and began one week before launch, with the majority of personnel from NASA, the Department of Defense and contractors arriving 48 hours before launch. Additionally, two C-130 aircraft from the space flight support office from the adjacent Patrick Space Force Base (then known as Patrick Air Force Base) would deliver eight crew members, nine pararescuers, two flight surgeons, a nurse and medical technician, and 2,500 pounds (1,100 kg) of medical equipment to Zaragoza, Istres, or both. One or more C-21S or C-12S aircraft would also be deployed to provide weather reconnaissance in the event of an abort with a TALCOM, or astronaut flight controller aboard for communications with the shuttle pilot and commander."

Post reply on HN