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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#471

Post by Symmetry »

mhandley wrote: post #332

I'm really interested to see the hole it dug under the launch mount. The NASA SpaceFlight van took a direct hit from a fast moving chunk of concrete. https://twitter.com/JerryPikePhoto/status/164905272269878477... https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649053476276797440 Edit: it really did dig a crater (this was flat concrete under the pad before): https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649062784167030785

Needing to make a big flame trench and deluge system might be the big takeaway from this flight. I'm not happy at the construction delays that'll entail but it that's what it takes for enough engines to get through liftoff it's what needs to be done.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#472

Post by nunuvit »

Retric wrote: post #448
nunuvit wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. I've worked in "old space" and the fundamental problem is that they can't afford to experiment. SpaceX has the option to physically test an idea that's holding them up before investing in fully bringing it up to production quality, only to have to redo all that work next iteration. That's why they can make new things and do it cheaper and faster.

Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Rather than looking at failure as a constant rate you need to consider these numbers change with every flight. Initially major design flaws are identified and workers become more skilled at a process, eventually new errors creep in etc etc. They have greatly benefited from being able to use modern tools and seen where other systems f…

This isn't a production flight so why are you treating it at one? What if I told you that you can't compile your code until you deploy it for the first time and you don't get to change it much after that? I'll leave you to contemplate that thought experiment yourself.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#473

Post by generj »

hristov wrote: post #164

[flagged]

Explosions are fun.

Once the stack was tumbling everyone in the SpaceX crowd knew the outcome (seeing as how they were standing behind Mission Control with better telemetry than is publicly transmitted they likely knew the rocket was going too slow or had too many engines out for an orbital speed test well before we did).

So yeah, cathartic big boom. Nobody got hurt, no customer cargo lost, company and their jobs aren’t at risk. Why not have some fun looking at the explosion then go back to work?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#474

Post by 908B64B197 »

kortex wrote: post #365

Initially 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…

To me it's an incredible achievement.

Raptor engine development started in 2012. Starship's development started around the same time. They now achieved max Q and got flight data all the way to booster separation. On real, flight ready hardware. By an all-American team started right here in California using private funding from an already profitable all-American privately developed launch platform (the Falcon 9).

This is in contrast to the SLS and it's predecessor the Constellation program (the SLS really being an evolution of the Ares I and V) that started in 2005 and, so far yielded a single successful test flight. Almost 30 billions sunk in "research and development" (for Shuttle derived hardware?). Excluding launch costs.

Or even really the crown jewel of the European Union, Ariane 6, a technological dead-end delayed once again and already 15 years behind the Falcon 9.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#475

Post by s1artibartfast »

spuz wrote: post #454
kortex wrote: post #365

Initially 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…

It's not even about the FAA requirements, it is just bare minimum engineering to ask where will this rocket go if it doesn't blow up mid-air?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#476

Post by AstixAndBelix »

sandworm101 wrote: post #309
mabbo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing something, I'm describing it. This is what SpaceX is doing , and it's quite successful. And you can look all the way back to their little hopper version of the Falcon 9 and see that this strategy has been the key to them undercutting the launch market significantly. My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have…

My point would be that while SpaceX does save lots of money, it doesn't do so by producing cheap or less reliable rockets. It would never accept a failure rate any different than anyone else because, in aerospace, that isn't really a thing. SpaceX can certainly blast forwards with different business practices and different tolerance for developmental risks, but the final product will not be fundamentally different th…

>There will never be a "cheap" version of a commercial rocket with an accepted less-than-perfect failure rate. Spaceflight is an all-or-nothing game.

substitute rocket and spaceflight with airplane and flight and see how that sounds

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#477

Post by sigstoat »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #196
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I kinda wish they'd have let it keep going in order to get the telemetry. The altitude and velocity when things went sideways were in MRBM territory, not ICBM territory so the only thing they would have hit would have been the Atlantic ocean.

they let it go well past the point it was clear to lay observers that it was out of control. i expect they got all the uncontrolled-descent telemetry they really had a use for.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#478

Post by dweinus »

Came here to see fan boys call an explosion a success; did not disappoint. This rocket is compared often to the Saturn V. Number of times the Saturn V exploded: 0. "Fail fast" for launching satellites is one thing, but this is meant to safely carry people.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#479

Post by baggachipz »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #62

If you watch the this launch video, It looks like there are projectiles coming up from the pad around 18s. I wonder if the launch pad or engines were damaged by explosion. https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649043715686793218

I'm nothing resembling a rocket scientist, but the lack of flame diverters like you see for every other rocket launch has been a mystery to me. Every starship launch or static fire ends in concrete flying everywhere. That can't be good.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#480

Post by lazide »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #475
spuz wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not even about the FAA requirements, it is just bare minimum engineering to ask where will this rocket go if it doesn't blow up mid-air?

Well, they could plan on blowing it up I guess?
Post reply on HN