The journalist narrative on this is petty and pathetic, all over some little blue icons...
Astounding feat of engineering.
SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
511–520 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#512It looked just like a regular launch in Kerbal Space Program at the end.
I was so surprised it held for so long! Every time something similar happened in KSP I got a little angry at the game for obviously wrong simulation: no way the rocket would hold together under such stresses. And then I see real-life rocket of biggest proportions do just that. I owe KSP an apology I guess
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#513It 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.
My guess is that losing too many engines meant that they were too low, in too thick atmosphere for the speed they were reaching and with the reduced control authority form a missing gimbaling engine they couldn't maintain stability with those fins in the front. But we'll learn more later.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#514I get that there are multiple endpoints being tested here and some of them may have been satisfied, but I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world on hacker news where people are arguing that multiple failed engines, a failed stage detachment and an exploding rocket worth millions of dollars and and carrying a large number of limited supply raptor engines is a "massive success". Can we just call it for what it is? Mix…
Why can't you just be satisfied and just bask in the warm glow of SpaceX like the rest of this thread?
In all seriousness I don't follow space stuff much so I give the benefit of the doubt when 99% of posters give rave reviews... but I also know who is in charge of this company and the same thing was happening with Tesla a few years ago with every announcement/demo getting 99% of HN people giddy and just a few shouted down people saying "but..."
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make any sense for prototypes. It's been slightly fewer decades since we've been doing consumer software. Does anybody expect version 1 to be bug free?
You're thinking about this like an engineer rather than a PR consultant or a journalist looking to write a hit piece on Musk. Even now, it's not hard to ask the somewhat specious question of how we can be 70+ years into aerospace tech and we still need our rockets to blow up.
A rocket is a structure designed to be as light as possible while containing as much energy as possible.
That combination is inherently explosive in any sort of failure.
Historically we can see that there are two modes of rocket development when it comes to failure tolerance. 1. Iterate fast and blow stuff up (e.g. mercury/redstone, spacex) or 2. Iterate slowly, at massive cost, with fewer catastrophic failures (space shuttle, Apollo, SLS).
When it comes to safety, the slow and expensive route has a dubious track record. Of course, slow and expensive is producing much more complex vehicles, until today, at least.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That's one answer, but my point is that asking the question and forming an answer is basic development.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#517Initially 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.
That doesn’t apply here because they have no opportunity to change anything after the mistake, right?
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#518Somewhere there is a team that is over the top happy about an incredibly successful explosion. Their job was to make sure that if flight path deviated beyond some threshhold that the whole vehicle would be blown into tiny parts that would become ballistically safe. They were on the edge of their seats on how well that would work. They saw the lift off team celebrate their success. They saw the booster team fist pumpi…
One demolition team member had commented that his butt was clenched the whole time and when he finally saw the rocket explode it was like a euphoric release.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#519People 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…
100% success matters when you need to hit a launch window for interplanetary transit. or when you have spacecraft that are integrating sensors from dozens of commercial and academic partners. 100% success matters when rockets are actually launching payloads. what is the evidence that this fail fast method is superior to the already tried and tested method? everyone just assumes that. the differences between spx stars…
Your comment was dead when I got to it - I disagree with your words but vouched because I think being skeptical is valuable (terms and conditions may apply, etc).
I can't personally attest to this but another commenter mentioned that this was what the soviets did as part of a space race with a smaller budget.
You should note that success rate is crucial once you are in production and ready to go - judging overall success against that bar while developing and testing is nonsense.
Finally - I think everyone learns faster by trying more things and making more mistakes? I wouldnt blame you for wanting to see that studied - kind of a neat question after all - but it seems like you are assuming one method or another was picked because it was superior as opposed to a reality of material constraints.
I feel like if NASA had budget for blowing up more rockets to prove/disprove points that they would be doing so. Actually now that I say it out loud I can't imagine anyone choosing 'not rocket'.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#520[flagged]