I continue to think that this is cool stuff, while being very, very dismayed by what he's doing with Twitter. I don't understand what the attraction of the latter is for someone with the wherewithal to work on spaceships.
SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
461–470 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#462Earlier 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.
Isn't this such a low bar that almost anything could clear it (e.g. Goodhart's law)?
To me, more interesting than how the company itself defines success would be how domain experts outside the company perceive it.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#463What's really dreading for me, is that the first launch showed, that the problem of synchronous work of many engines, which doomed N1[0], was not solved. SpaceX knew about it from the start and placed it's bet on 50 years of technological advances. I don't want to think about the scenario where that bet is lost.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#464Initially posted this as a reply, but going top-level, cause the hot takes are too spicy for my liking. So the plan was to test x, y, and z. Launch sequence and takeoff, stage separation and Starship engine light, and the post-launch stuff like booster wet landing, reentry, and heat tiles. The booster by itself is not aerodynamic, so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. And if you have starship, you migh…
In my part time work as an artist this has been my experience as well: my best work always seems to happen after a “mistake”, then the pressure is off and I just start playing and experimenting. In the rare case where I execute a planned design with no mistakes, the outcome is generally stale and doesn’t live up to how I imagined it.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#465Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.
So you're suggesting intent was to detonate the rocket in the air, despite that not having been stated anywhere? "I may have crashed the car into the neighbour's house and broken my arm, but I did get the milk from the store!"
[flagged]
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#466People 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.
They're building Raptor engines at a pace of one per day though !
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#467Earlier 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…
Let's look back at Star Hopper. SpaceX literally hired a company that builds water towers to build a prototype tank for Starship - and flew it! They were primarily trying to figure out how to build it, move it, etc. Obviously the risk tolerance was high. That's really the difference between them and say Boeing. SpaceX starts with higher risk tolerance just to figure out the lay of the land, but they start reducing th…
Alternative take: SpaceX is so new they don't know what they don't know.
Take their example of a failed F9 strut, where the material supplied by a vendor didn't come close to meeting the necessary specs. A mature aersopace company would have processes in place to check the material for these specs before use. SpaceX has since levied these new process checks, but prior to that failure lots people may have pointed to them as being more efficient because of their 'streamlined' process.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#468People 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…
Daily Mail (UK) and NY Post (US) are quoting the cost of this launch as $3B
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#469Initially posted this as a reply, but going top-level, cause the hot takes are too spicy for my liking. So the plan was to test x, y, and z. Launch sequence and takeoff, stage separation and Starship engine light, and the post-launch stuff like booster wet landing, reentry, and heat tiles. The booster by itself is not aerodynamic, so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. And if you have starship, you migh…
That's an interesting point about the flight plan - if the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a contingency. SpaceX: We expect the vehicle to reach 40km at which point it will probably blow up. FAA: Ok but what if it doesn't blow up? SpaceX: Well I suppose we could separate the stages. FAA: And then what happens? SpaceX: Well I suppose we could try to land th…
You joke but that's all also import rehearsal for all the teams responsible for each stage of the flight. The compleat plan, in full detail, with the "expectation" that it will happen is essential to learning.
If you don't start practicing these details until later in the development you have missed an opportunity to fine tune them and prepare for all eventualities.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#470[deleted]