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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#541

Post by p1mrx »

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?

It's been launched beyond the environment. Nothing's out there.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#542

Post by shkkmo »

szoszon wrote: post #306
nomilk wrote: post #157

Anyone reading the headline could easily be misled: this was a massive success. Some context: - This was the first "integrated test" of the Starship space craft with its booster - The whole thing together was 120 meters tall - It will be one order of magnitude larger than the current largest rocket in terms of carrying capacity (~150 tonnes if it needs to return the booster, 250 if it doesn't) - There's 5 more of the…

If there are 5 more of these being built, how they will incorporate anything they learned during this failed attempt? Isn't that just a waste of money?

No only are there more being built, but this launch used engines that are already obsolete. They are learning stuff by building the rocket, by testing the components and by using them to do a test launch. They are trying to wring as much learning out of each step as possible.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#543

Post by samwillis »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #540
samwillis wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Need to see the numbers before passing judgement. Dirt is cheap compared to concrete. Depending on how many cycles the concrete is expected to last it may be cheaper both short and long term to just have "ablative dirt" and bulldoze around afterwards "reloading" the launcher. There's also other variables like how long it takes for the engines to stabilize and the launcher to release the rocket, weight of rocket, etc…

The issue is that that dirt and rocks flying around damages all the other expensive equipment at the launch site. There is going to be some very dead kit down there. They can't do that every time.

But big dust clouds also upset people, and SpaceX can't afford to fall out with the locals.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#544

Post by perihelions »

baja_blast wrote: post #192
badcppdev wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story/thread gets my upvote because it is by far the least click-bait headline I saw in a quick scan of /new. I will disagree with you though and say that the rocket stage separation failed to work. And this occurred a few minutes after launching. What would your headline be?

If the separation did not fail it probably would have made it to orbit.

First-stage burnout speed was too low for orbit, I think. Telemetry peaked at 2,148 km/hour = 597 m/s – I don't know the nominal values but this seems non-viable to me.

(?)

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#545

Post by renewiltord »

sidibe wrote: post #514
blake929 wrote: post #494

I 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 shoute…

Really doesn't seem that way

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17397271

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16328676

Pretty even mix of enthusiasm and doomsaying. There's even people saying that Tesla will go bankrupt and Apple will absorb them.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#546

Post by bombcar »

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…

There's a similar thing with a check ride for a pilot license; the examiner has to tell you when you fail (because plane is expensive, etc) - and ask if you want to continue. Almost everyone recommends that you do even though you're guaranteed not going to pass; because if there's anything else you want it caught for the debrief.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#547

Post by 16bytes »

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.

If you watch the launch broadcast, the hosts set the expectation that they success meant achieving thrust-to-weight of >1 and clearing the launch facility.

Furthermore, we don't know there was a failure to separate. If I had to guess, once the vehicle was in an unstable attitude outside of the nominal flight path, they triggered the self-destruct and purposefully didn't try to separate.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#548

Post by causi »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #540
samwillis wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Need to see the numbers before passing judgement. Dirt is cheap compared to concrete. Depending on how many cycles the concrete is expected to last it may be cheaper both short and long term to just have "ablative dirt" and bulldoze around afterwards "reloading" the launcher. There's also other variables like how long it takes for the engines to stabilize and the launcher to release the rocket, weight of rocket, etc…

It wasn't "ablative dirt". It was a massive reinforced concrete pad that was pulverized and blown to kingdom come.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#549

Post by pizlonator »

This write-up is so bad. It’s almost like a caricature of bad takes. If I wanted to show someone an example of why journalists suck at their jobs, I think this would be exhibit A.

This rapid unscheduled disassembly was a huge success for SpaceX and everyone involved should be so proud. What a kick ass display of engineering prowess. That’s what the take should be, not “they tried to fly for an hour but it blew up after some minutes”.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#550

Post by shkkmo »

szoszon wrote: post #411
baq wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some parts are interchangeable. The countdown process needs optimization. There are things missing and things which shouldn’t be there. We’re talking about speed of loading propellant, density of it, etc. Then there’s software. So much software. And a million other things. Rockets are complex, launching them doubly so.

Yeah, that's why you engineer, and test before trying to launch something like that. There won't be any other attempt this year - I can bet my lunch money on this.

> There won't be any other attempt this year

Possible, but not a sure bet by any means and one I'd happily take the other side of.

Post reply on HN