Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.
I hate when major outlets sink to using clickbait headlines that mischaracterize an account of events
SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
261–270 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#262Let’s not move the goalposts. This company develops differently than historical aerospace. Success was defined as blowing up any point beyond the launch pad. It made it well past max-q which is the point of highest atmospheric stress on the rocket.
Actually the 'fail fast, learn faster' and 'launch often' approach is what the Soviets did. SpaceX is following the same methodology 20 years later but with far better technology and learnings. Though it seems they are again attempting the Soviet N1 rocket attempt of using more than 30 engines in Starship.
It's historically different in US aerospace, but not Soviet aerospace.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#263Let’s not move the goalposts. This company develops differently than historical aerospace. Success was defined as blowing up any point beyond the launch pad. It made it well past max-q which is the point of highest atmospheric stress on the rocket.
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#264People 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…
>"Fail fast" applies to more than just software.
Yes, but let's not take the analogy too far. For people who work in safety-critical design (including software), it takes a different mindset than what is often prevalent in silicon valley. When the stakes are high, you don't really want to "move fast and break things".
You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payload or passengers), the risk threshold is high. But they start taking a more measured approach when that risk starts to ratchet up. The danger being, advocates of one approach don't always know when/how to transition to the other.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#265Success 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.
Musk was saying it was a 50% chance the rocket blew up on the launchpad. Their sole hope was that it made it in the air, leaving the launchpad unscathed and quickly usable for future launches.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#266Parts falling off, engines going out, something getting inside the interstage. That ship was an absolute fighter.
One or two engines looked like they actually exploded in flight, it just kept going like nothing happened. Absolutely amazing.
It was great to see that they seemed unconcerned about 3 engines not lighting on launch. That's the sort of redundancy Starship is going to need to succeed in the way SpaceX are aiming for.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
What provoked this response? The headline makes no assertions about success or failure. It is extremely literally a description of what occurred. It’s one thing to feel defensive about a misleading headline. This is just fanboyism.
It invites unreasonable expectations. That's not a theoretical problem, you can see examples all over this thread.
The problem in that case is that HN users commonly don’t read the article to get the full story.
From TFA:
> SpaceX staff still cheered as Starship went down in flames. Successfully lifting the 400-foot-tall rocket off the launch pad is still a big step forward to its ultimate goal of one day ferrying humans to the moon and Mars, the company said.
> "With a test like this, success comes from what we learn," the company said in a tweet. "Today's test will help us improve Starship's reliability as SpaceX seeks to make life multi-planetary."
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#268Good moment to watch the Apollo launch failure in Koyaanisqatsi again: https://vimeo.com/400276071 from 9:47
Or the Atlas ones from The Right Stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwi_0DEd_0
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#269Video 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.
The flight plan was the best case scenario.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not known, as SpaceX is a private company, and the rocket is still being developed. But I'd say a whole lot less than $2B per launch ;-)
You touch upon an interesting advantage that private space engineering has that, depending on one's attitude on the topic, may or may not be fair. NASA has to do everything in the public eye and their process reflects this. Private enterprise is allowed to hide information, which implies they are allowed to massage information. (... this probably says unfortunate things about the nature of governance by public sentim…
> NASA has to do everything in the public eye and their process reflects this. Private enterprise is allowed to hide information, which implies they are allowed to massage information.
That would be a good point if we were talking about NASA vs Blue Origin. But SpaceX is arguably building more in the open than NASA.