SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#571

Post by dotnet00 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

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?

Considering that the failures don't appear to point to fundamental design flaws of the structure of the vehicle (if anything it kind of overperformed structurally with how long it just tumbled despite being a 100m tall, mostly hollow tube), they'll do it the same way you would fix/upgrade a car, by swapping out the bad parts.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#572

Post by eatmyshorts » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

Watching the mission, I noticed that engines kept shutting down. There are 33 of them. When they had turned off 7 of them, with 26 engines remaining lit, it started to lose control. The engineers all seemed ecstatic about the mission. I have to wonder if they weren't intentionally shutting off engines to see how many could fail while still retaining control. If that was indeed tested, the answer appears to be 6--they can operate nominally with 27 engines lit.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#573

Post by sebsebmc » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #555

[Spoiler ahead] Watched the live stream, I knew they had a bad problem when it appeared the engines were facing upwards. My time with KSP has taught me that no matter how well you think the flight is going, the rocket is still more than eager to return to earth given the chance. I wonder what actually caused the explosion? Did they scuttle it after a few flips? Did a tank break after a few flips and unplanned stresse…

It actually was expected to do a flip and perform stage separation. It was a problem when it kept trying to flip and Starship didn't separate.

The explosion at the end was the Flight Termination System. In case of uncontrolled flight you detonate the rocket to keep it from flying somewhere dangerous.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#574

Post by greenhearth » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

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…

This is the real legacy of propulsion flight. What is the end goal of this? Moon trips for rich people? Disgusting.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#575

Post by vannevar » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

samwillis wrote: post #483

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…

>That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was not an expected possibility.

Interestingly, this post predicting exactly this kind of damage was flagged on HN just days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590279

I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. They have a pretty good engineering team, and that aspect didn't involve an anomaly, it was the vehicle operating as planned at launch. But admitting the inadequacy of the launch facility would've undoubtedly led to significant delays. Fortunately for SpaceX, the rocket blew up, which will draw media attention away from the damage on and around the launchpad.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#576

Post by aaronharnly » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

smiley1437 wrote: post #395

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…

Parable of the Pots - Quantity leads to quality https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality... [A] ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he…

I like this parable!

The counterpoint to it is the probably apocryphal Soviet nail factory (but with more verifiable examples nearby):

Once upon a time, there was a factory in the Soviet Union that made nails. Unfortunately, Moscow set quotas on their nail production, and they began working to meet the quotas as described, rather than doing anything useful. When they set quotas by quantity, they churned out hundreds of thousands of tiny, useless nails. When Moscow realized this was not useful and set a quota by weight instead, they started building big, heavy railroad spike-type nails that weighed a pound each.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22375/did-a-sov...

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#577

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

aziaziazi wrote: post #211

haunter wrote: post #8

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&t=2920s (the cheering is actually really funny cause the launch was already a success)

> clearing the tower was all we hoped All, really ? What about the flight plan ? I like the American philosophy to see the good part of experiences even when thinks don’t go as planned, but IMHO I feel like it's drifting more and more from « there’s good in failure » to « let’s call everything a success ». May be wrong, just my European point of view through the transatlantic optic fiber.

You're not totally wrong, there is a lot of cheerleading going on, putting a positive spin on every little bit. There are a lot of uncritical fans here. I hope that internally at SpaceX the engineers are a lot more serious. Based on the results they've achieved with other rockets, my guess is they are.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#578

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

stephc_int13 wrote: post #559

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…

I don't like this. I fully understand that rocket launches are going to fail a few times before succeeding, I don't get the need for gaslight. This feels like North Korea style propaganda.

Where is the gas lighting? They said getting off the launch pad would be a win going into it and people are pointing this out after the fact. There is no hypocrisy or doublethink involved

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#579

Post by dang » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

What would be a more neutral and accurate headline?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#580

Post by RoyGBivCap » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

a4isms wrote: post #91

eisvogel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking this as well... It spiraled seemingly forever without failing, while they hoovered telemetry off of it, until pressing the big red button. Massive fault tolerance at play. SpaceX is awesome in so many ways. Thanks Elon.

Perhaps you mean, "Thanks Gwynne Shotwell." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell I think HN understands the difference between a charismatic leader who is good at laying out a vision and generating a tremendous amount of hype around it (like Steve Jobs) and someone who is an expert at actually realizing a vision (Steve Wozniak, Tim Cook). They may both be necessary for success, but if you are praising the ro…

Ah HN, where you can denigrate the hell out of anyone as long as you say it politely and sufficiently passive aggressively While clearly following obediently with the new "Elon Musk bad now" doctrine. Being blunt and direct is more virtuous through sheer honesty.