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

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#591

Post by rektide » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

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…

"makes as many mistakes as possible" is such a wonderful attitude! learn something, especially when you are in unexpected terrain.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#592

Post by mindcrime » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

p1mrx wrote: post #541

s1artibartfast wrote: post #475

Earlier 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?

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

You mean it's been launched from one environment into another environment?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#593

Post by diebeforei485 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

News media headlines are being quite unfair for a test. They know it's a test launch, but they choose this sort of headline anyway, probably because "rocket man bad".

Maybe SpaceX should have painted "TEST" on all sides of the rocket so the flow of information to the public is immune to biased media. Like a shunt in a circuit.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#594

Post by mschuster91 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #568

sschueller wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturn V was 110m tall and 140t in the 1960s.

As impressive as Starship is or will be, Saturn V has definitely earned a place in the history books that cannot be undone. The first airplane flew in 1903. Just 64 years later, Saturn V was launched for the first time. The fact that it has taken us 56 more years since then to outdo it says a lot.

> The fact that it has taken us 56 more years since then to outdo it says a lot.

Mostly that people stopped caring after it was proven that, yes, the US can land a person on the moon.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#595

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:56 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…

It's been wild to see people here try and spin this as a success story, because the rocket launch was missing things known to be required and the end result was as you mentioned. Massive destruction of the surrounding area which is going to require months of rebuilding and tons of $$$.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#596

Post by abudabi123 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

Learning from this failure the second stage can gain ailogic for stage sep to recover after release knowing five or more 1st stage engines failed on the way up. Looked like the rud happened at the 4:04 mark, poetic.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#597

Post by nerpderp82 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

rektide wrote: post #591

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…

"makes as many mistakes as possible" is such a wonderful attitude! learn something, especially when you are in unexpected terrain.

Causally attributed mistakes as possible. Mistakes on their own aren't useful unless you can determine a causal relationship.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#598

Post by almost_usual » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #575

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…

>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,…

I still don’t understand why that post was flagged so quickly.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#599

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

nerpderp82 wrote: post #587

ceejayoz wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Raptor issues may well be just a symptom of the concrete issue; large chunks flying up into complicated plumbing isn't ideal.

This will be more of an issue on landing (the moon, mars, mercury, the bricks in red square).

Not necessarily; low gravity plus lighter weight means much, much lower thrust on landing in those locations. F9 lands on the drone ships with one engine, for example. It also looked like today's launch involved a hold-down period while they lit them all; that wouldn't be the case for landing either.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#600

Post by AviationAtom » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #561

AviationAtom wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk was saying it was a 50% chance the rocket blew up on the launchpad. Their sole hope was that it made it in the air, leaving the launchpad unscathed and quickly usable for future launches.

He actually said 50% chance of reaching orbit. > “I'm not saying it will get to orbit, but I am guaranteeing excitement. It won't be boring,” Musk promised at a Morgan Stanley conference last month. “I think it's got, I don't know, hopefully about a 50% chance of reaching orbit.”

I stand corrected. That apparently was indeed the original context of his statement. The Internet has ways of morphing words.

I do recall he did express some level of concern about the launch pad being damaged if the rocket failed to launch though (it still looks like it was damaged to some degree from the launch.)