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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#521

Post by frutiger »

soperj wrote: post #486
samwillis wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There’s a tabletop game store in Manhattan called https://www.thecompleatstrategist.com/.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#522

Post by sandworm101 »

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…

>> the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a contingency.

We don't know what the intention or internal expectation was. What we have are public statements, which are generally more conservative in order that every success be an amazing surprise, every failure an expected event. What SpaceX was internally hoping for, what they were aiming for, and the details of what actually happened will remain a mystery for a while.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#523

Post by mcculley »

makomk wrote: post #377
mcculley wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad." I am confused. Everything I read before the launch said that it was intended to reach orbital altitude and make it around the Earth.

This test launch was never planned to actually make orbit. It was an "orbital test flight" only in the sense that it was intended to demonstrate system performance that would basically have been enough to reach orbit; the original plan was that they'd reach velocities and aerodynamic stresses similar to an actual orbital flight, test stage seperation, both stages, and part of the re-entry, then crash into the ocean,…

Right. It was not my understanding that they "planned to actually make orbit". This is why I used the same words they used, "orbital altitude".

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#524

Post by pfannkuchen »

I am really surprised at the negativity, it makes me want to stop coming here. How many here are actual engineers by profession? The default state of any novel engineering project is “not working”. Rockets are very hard among engineering projects. Failure here would look like the rocket doing nothing visible, perhaps a little bit of smoke. Neutral is the rocket exploding. Success is the rocket moving at all. The rocket actually flying and then making it to the point of attempting first stage separation is a shockingly amazing level of success for the first test run. The media should be congratulating the team and optimistically looking forward to future tests.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#525

Post by robin_reala »

soperj wrote: post #493
908B64B197 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 You forgot to include that this was also by an "all-American team".

And that it has to be an “all-American team” due to US legislation.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#526

Post by swarnie »

mcculley wrote: post #131
swarnie wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chief Twit said "anything other than blowing up the launch pad is a success."

Sounds like he moved the goalpost.

Moving the goal post pre-event is a new one for me.

Thanks for the laugh.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#527

Post by mkaic »

samstave wrote: post #415
dingosity wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is rightly, awesome... They just launched an 11 million pound firecracker.... It would be AWESOME if elon included actual fireworks which would go off in the event of a RUD to add some fabulousness to such events. In fact, all the devices that are stripped out for these test launches should be replaced with their equivalent weights in fireworks. Detonate them when possible during a RUD to allow for more spectac…

This is a fantastic idea, I'm sure the FAA will be thrilled when SpaceX asks them for permission to turn their rocket into a disneyland night-time spectacular orbital missile!

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#528

Post by RetpolineDrama »

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…

> That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space.

Your authoritative tone doesn't make any sense when Falcon 9 exists and has been actively dominating the entire industry for half a decade.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#530

Post by brewdad »

mcculley wrote: post #155
nagisa wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have been the flight plan. When drawing these up you don’t typically mark down "experiences an unexpected rapid disassembly a few minutes after launch.”

I thought they were very clear on how they defined "success". This is progress, and admirable, but not a success according to their previous statements.

It's a matter of expectations. No one set out with the goal of blowing up a rocket but it was very much an expected likely outcome. By clearing the launchpad, the team met their milestone. Anything beyond that is simply additional data to improve the next iteration.

I'm no fan of the SpaceX model but if it works for them and the safety of those on the ground is prioritized, it seems to work better than any other model tried here.

Post reply on HN