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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#481

Post by outworlder »

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…

The thing that bothers me about this rapid unplanned disassembly development methodology is all the environmental damage that this thing is doing. It was bad enough blowing up next to a wildlife preserve, but now they are (with some degree of certainty) blowing it higher up and scattering fragments across a huge area. The rockets are not getting any smaller.

> so the only way to test x is with a starship on top.

Why did they have to test "x" now? We don't have to go multi decades between launches, but couldn't they have delayed and tested when they had a more reasonable chance of success?

Maybe after building a flame trench/diverter too.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#482

Post by saberdancer »

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

NSF on their stream did talk that this is the only launch that will be done without water system - my understanding is that it would be used during launch to reduce damage to the pad.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#483

Post by samwillis »

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…

Exactly, the two untested things were stage zero (all the new ground infrastructure) and stage one (booster).

I think it's clear one of their biggest lessons is that the construction of the launch mount is wrong, and it REALY needs a flame diverter. Take a look at this photo: https://mobile.twitter.com/LabPadre/status/16490627841670307...

That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was not an expected possibility. It is a very costly mishap and could mean completely rebuilding the launch mount. With the excavation and rebuild, that could be months or even as long as a year.

On top of that there was significantly more debris making its way to South Padre, the political fallout (pun intended) will be significant, and could cause issues with launch licenses going forward.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#484

Post by saberdancer »

Symmetry wrote: post #471
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.

From what I understand that was already planned - this was only launch without it.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#485

Post by cdash »

bumby wrote: post #393
shinryuu wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remain…

It doesn't remain to be seen. SpaceX has done this already with the Falcon rocket.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#486

Post by soperj »

samwillis wrote: post #469
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…

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.

> compleat

Sorry, i've seen this spelling enough to now ask if this is a word that I don't know about or if it's just a mis-spelling of complete. Not trying to pick on you. I've had errors before, especially in space stuff (altitude & attitude).

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#487

Post by s1artibartfast »

bumby wrote: post #467
phkahler wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

If you don't know something, your options are to pack up your bags and go home or try to learn.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#488

Post by intrepidhero »

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…

Maybe you're trying to make the point that for very complicated systems with many failure points, the reliability of a single component is less impactful than redundancy and there is some truth to that but I must point out that risk vs cost calculations are definitely happening in both industries you mention.

Triple redundancy is not a thing in general aviation while, for some systems, it is in commercial. That's a risk vs cost calculation.

Semiconductor manufacturers do risk vs cost calculations through the entire development and manufacturing process. Source: I've worked in semiconductor, doing those calculations.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#489

Post by soperj »

outworlder wrote: post #481
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…

The thing that bothers me about this rapid unplanned disassembly development methodology is all the environmental damage that this thing is doing. It was bad enough blowing up next to a wildlife preserve, but now they are (with some degree of certainty) blowing it higher up and scattering fragments across a huge area. The rockets are not getting any smaller. > so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. Why…

The road to the coast likely did more damage than blowing up a hundred vehicles.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#490

Post by HarryHirsch »

destitude wrote: post #322
bitL wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's with these orange flames about 70 and 120 seconds into the flight and with the fire at the bottom of the spacecraft that you can see in the SpaceX stream at T+2:10?

Looks like the propellant line issues from earlier flight tests - that sort of stuff is really not at all supposed to happen.

Post reply on HN