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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#321

Post by 93po »

bitL wrote: post #199
simondotau wrote: post #6

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

It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds), then at around 30 seconds you can see some explosion at the bottom, throwing away some surface parts. Multiple failed engines. Then it went into an unsurvivable "tailspin" if there was any crew around. Cheering for failure was the topping.

> It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds)

you have literally no idea what you're talking about

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#322

Post by destitude »

bitL wrote: post #199
simondotau wrote: post #6

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

It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds), then at around 30 seconds you can see some explosion at the bottom, throwing away some surface parts. Multiple failed engines. Then it went into an unsurvivable "tailspin" if there was any crew around. Cheering for failure was the topping.

What evidence do you have it almost blew up at launchpad? That most likely was concrete chunks flying off away from the rocket and nothing with the rocket itself. You really don't seem to have a grasp what was trying to be done or how any of the previous SpaceX rocket programs functioned.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#323

Post by deelowe »

sandworm101 wrote: post #198
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…

>> People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space. Complicated high-energy systems have thousands of failure points. So to have any chance of success each failure point needs to be engineered below, by way of example, a 0.0001% chance of failure. That costs lots of money. But say one decides to accept more risk for less c…

Your intel example doesn't fully hold water. Chip design has taken a binning approach for decades at this point. The silicon is designed for failure in such a way that yield is maximized assuming there will be a variance in quality. Launch and iterate happens for silicon just like anything else. During the initial product launch, there is a lot of waste, but as processes are improved, microcode updated, rework procedures defined, and value engineering efforts completed, yields go up and costs go down.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#324

Post by jlmorton »

shadowgovt wrote: post #180
LeonM wrote: post #128

Earlier 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…

True. On the other hand, we do know that SpaceX has taken about $10 billion in funding since its inception.

With that, they developed Falcon 1, Merlin engines, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, first full-flow staged combustion engine in the methalox Raptor engine, Starship, Starship Heavy, Dragon, Crew Dragon, Re-usability, Starlink satellite manufacturing and 4,000 satellites launched to orbit, and quite a bit more.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#325

Post by daveslash »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #40
panki27 wrote: post #11

It looked just like a regular launch in Kerbal Space Program at the end.

Pretty much, I'm sure most of us have at least once had a tumble at or above max-Q. I'm intrigued as per cause. Lots of Engine failures and spewed parts. It had a real slide on liftoff. An engine violently flashed and went pop about +25s. I do have to say, the thing requiring FTS after a violent flip well above supersonic speaks orders about structural work.

(Low Quality Comment Here) I, for one, have never had a tumble in KSP. Nope, every single launch, exactly as planned, all the way to orbit, and even the Mun. I have never once strapped a bazzilion first-stage engines in a row just to see what happens. Never once stacked them as high as I can. Nope - totally responsible game player over here.

Note: Trying to fly Jeb directly into the Sun was a real lesson in Angular Momentum.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#326

Post by rsynnott »

meepmorp wrote: post #149
matzab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the launch pad survived this one.

Yeah, starship has a ways to go to beat the N1's body count.

I'm not sure the N1 actually killed anyone? The second launch resulted in the rocket falling on and destroying the launch pad (one engine exploded on liftoff, the computer turned most of the other engines off), but I don't think anyone died.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#327

Post by ceejayoz »

pmontra wrote: post #310
the_third_wave wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect SpaceX will have to add something resembling an escape system before the thing gets "man-rated". That system could also be used to protect the passengers in case of a failed landing. It will add weight and thus lower the carrying capacity but they seem to have enough margin to allow for such an addition. They already have the header tanks in the top of Starship, adding a number of escape engines and some ex…

They want to carry 100 people. An escape system for those many people is the same scale of a commercial airliner escape system, which is designed to be operated on a stationary plane, on land or water. Astronauts will be well trained to use it but I think that there must be a lot of openings to let 100 people get out quickly in mid air. Maybe they'll agree that Starship is its own escape system. There is a section ab…

It's not going to hold 100 people anytime soon.

Airliners don't have an in-flight escape system, anyways.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#328

Post by cpleppert »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #63
Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but, nevertheless, I’d like to know why it exploded before declaring this a success!

It likely exploded because they blew it up (flight termination system). It looks like the stages failed to separate and it started to spin. In this case they don’t let an uncontrollable rocket just fly off and see where it comes down, they blow it up. The FTS is basically an explosive mounted to the rocket that can be remotely detonated exactly for situations like this.

>> It looks like the stages failed to separate and it started to spin.

Most complicated part of building any rocket by far and Starship's is a lot more complex than any previous one by far. It was always the most failure prone part but everything else looks great.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#329

Post by mgfist »

bumby wrote: post #264
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…

> "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 payloa…

> 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.

This corroborates "fail fast". They achieve reliability and safety by launching far more than traditional space companies and seeing failure in those launches. They prove it out before adding the risk of human lives or expensive cargo. Meanwhile traditional companies will develop their rocket for 15 years till it's "perfect". SpaceX figured out that achieving perfection is best done through actual attempts, not laboratory experiments.

Post reply on HN