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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#391

Post by dingosity »

kortex wrote: post #226
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you are planning on several y and z anyways, absolutely. On the most recent SmarterEveryDay video on encasing a Prince Rupert's drop in glass, sculptor Cal Breed talks about the moment when a process fails. He could stop there and restart, saving some time, but instead all the pressure is off, and he "makes as many mistakes as possible" for the rest of the build. Quote is towards the end, but the whole vid is wort…

Adjacent to this discussion is the "All Up Testing" concept from the Saturn era. The conservative testing strategy was to test each component individually, then put them together and test them as a system. All up eschewed this conservative approach, testing everything that was ready. It's only marginally germane to this discussion, but a great historical note since other commenters are comparing the Starship with the Saturn V.

http://heroicrelics.org/info/all-up/all-up-flight-testing.ht...

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#392

Post by samsari »

vvillena wrote: post #68
kgwxd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cheering was annoying, it felt like it was being forced by some cringey hype man.

Part of SpaceX company culture. All their launches are cheer-heavy. Even mission control gets rowdy at times.

I remember I think it was when they first landed the booster successfully, there was a big "USA! USA! USA!" cheer from mission control. I thought that was a bit of an ugly look myself.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#393

Post by bumby »

shinryuu wrote: post #314
bumby wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I think it's a matter of failing in a safe environment. Clearly that's what space x is doing. They fail spectularly, but they do so within the confines of a safe environment. For the real launch they've already mapped out the failure modes and are able to prevent them when it really matters.

I've worked in aerospace. The organizations (both public and private) would all claim to fail "within the confines of a safe environment".

One small BS detector is when there's some unplanned/unmitigated test outcome that gets characterized as a "test anomaly" rather than being transparent about the details.

>they've already mapped out the failure modes and are able to prevent them when it really matters

This remains to be seen. The shuttle also had all their failure modes mapped out. As did CST-100. Yet massive failures still occurred.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#394

Post by fastball »

szoszon wrote: post #306
nomilk wrote: post #157

Anyone reading the headline could easily be misled: this was a massive success. Some context: - This was the first "integrated test" of the Starship space craft with its booster - The whole thing together was 120 meters tall - It will be one order of magnitude larger than the current largest rocket in terms of carrying capacity (~150 tonnes if it needs to return the booster, 250 if it doesn't) - There's 5 more of the…

If there are 5 more of these being built, how they will incorporate anything they learned during this failed attempt? Isn't that just a waste of money?

From watching the launch, my absolutely pulled from my butt guess is that something went wrong with the stage separation system, and that the explosion was deliberately triggered by the SpaceX team / triggered by automated guardrails when the mission didn't go according to parameters.

If that's true, then they can just fix whatever is wrong with the stage separation. And if it's something else, they can probably fix that too. Doesn't seem like it was anything unchangeably / structurally wrong with the entire craft.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#395

Post by smiley1437 »

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…

Parable of the Pots - Quantity leads to quality

https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality...

[A] ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#396

Post by edgyquant »

93po wrote: post #292
s1k3s wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. That's not what they said in their mission presentation though. It was supposed to launch, separate, return the booster back, then the rocket was supposed to orbit once around the Earth and then fall into the ocean. I understand people have their feelings invested into this (for whatever reason), but objectively speaking that was not what "success was defined…

They defined success up front as being able to gather information. They did that.

You can gather information by just leaving the rocket on the pad. Saying, “we can’t fail no matter what,” ahead of your failure doesn’t mean anyone else has to accept you didn’t fail.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#397

Post by CydeWeys »

eisvogel wrote: post #146
a4isms wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you mean, "Thanks Gwynne Shotwell." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell I think HN understands the difference between a charismatic leader who is good at laying out a vision and generating a tremendous amount of hype around it (like Steve Jobs) and someone who is an expert at actually realizing a vision (Steve Wozniak, Tim Cook). They may both be necessary for success, but if you are praising the ro…

Shotwell is also awesome, that is certain. They all are. I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman, and it would be great if it were her. However, Elon founded that company (and personally hired Shotwell) and has been a continual source of engineering inspiration, for several decades. His direction has pretty much forced the global automotive industry to go electric. People may not li…

She's way too important to risk on the first crewed mission to Mars (which is going to be very risky). This is what astronauts are for.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#398

Post by ChrisBland »

baja_blast wrote: post #178
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 technological developments in the 60s/70s in aerospace never cease to amaze me. The SR-71, X-15, Saturn 5 rocket all developed when computers were less powerful than the NES yet they achieved things that no one else has been able to accomplish since (although I am sure there these have been surpassed via classified Skunk Works).

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. I wish we were spending this much on science now

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#399

Post by dingosity »

samstave wrote: post #359
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…

I loved the fact that in the video, the staff clapped when the thing exploded... Where in the past, people would be like "OH NO!!" -- but the crew knew how much data they got out of that launch. I wonder how stripped down the starship was though in an effort to save costs in the event such as this RUD. I would love a piece of the shrapnel from the exploded device though... Hopefully they get those pieces and auction…

I suspect they were told "if we get off the ground, it's a success." Elon's been saying similar things over the last week.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#400

Post by CydeWeys »

cubic_earth wrote: post #74

Looking at the aerial footage before the launch, I was wondering why there is so much infrastructure so close to the pad. Clearly much of needs to be nearby, but perhaps those tanks should be 800 - 1000 feet from the pad and not ~200. After seeing the damage to some of that infrastructure caused by the launch, I am still wondering.

They would much rather not have all that infrastructure close to the pad. This is a sub-optimal situation that they, more than anyone else, are acutely aware of. Sadly this is what they could get.
Post reply on HN