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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#641

Post by mkaic »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #524

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 rock…

I wholeheartedly agree. My engineering teacher in high school always used to tell us to fail fast and fail often and I think SpaceX has that down to a T — because failing in engineering isn't really failing, it's an integral part of the development process! Why spend countless billions trying to make sure everything goes exactly right on the first try when you could achieve an even higher final quality by just accepting that a few of your spaceships are going to explode, and that explosions are learning opportunities?

In summary yeah, this launch was a massive success!

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#643

Post by mkaic »

Kiro wrote: post #536
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…

I was under the impression that none of it was ever planned to be recovered. I.e. nothing was really lost here since it would have been destroyed either way.

Well, they were hoping to possibly get a chance at soft-landing the Super Heavy Booster in the ocean, which might have allowed them to recover some stuff from it, but that was always viewed as a potential bonus, never a guarantee or even a primary goal.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#644

Post by bryanlarsen »

fzeroracer wrote: post #595
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…

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 $$$.

Pouring more concrete is not very expensive. It takes a month to cure completely, but the next test is multiple months out regardless. By that time they'll have the deluge equipment installed.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#645

Post by j16sdiz »

wkat4242 wrote: post #620
vannevar wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

Interesting article. He doesn't really speak of a large hole in the ground and huge chunks of debris flying around though. More of the effects of the heat and sound energy on wildlife which is not quite as obvious. He raises some good points indeed, not sure why it was flagged at all.

Given what have happened in the past few years, we (as a whole) are less tolerant to alternative ideas.

IMO, we (as a whole) should spend less time spreading ANY information online, use more time to think before speak

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#646

Post by ca_tech »

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…

I had a long history of supporting live events like this. One of the most common phrases we heard from the engineers was: "Well... that didn't act like the model"

That is why we test real things in the real world. While the rocket did not operate as expected, so much information from this launch is going to go back into engineering.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#647

Post by eutropia »

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 also usage of that spelling in Magic: The Gathering. One of the biggest villain factions in the Lore of the game, Phyrexians, assimilate beings against their will and brutally “perfect” them through magical and surgical means. The process is called “Compleation” - https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Compleation

The recent arc of expansions for the game have heavily features the Phyrexians, so the spelling might be more common this year. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&geo=...

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#648

Post by hackernewds »

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…

> risk is now 10-fold higher at each failure point, but with thousands of failure points adding up you are now essentially doomed. And you haven't saved anything. The cost of 0.001 components isn't fundamentally different than the 0.0001 components were.

exactly. optimizing for an acceptable risk for space launches, esp space travel, seems still to be leading to $2B launches. at which point, what's the difference?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#649

Post by mkaic »

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #241
ianai wrote: post #189

Let’s not move the goalposts. This company develops differently than historical aerospace. Success was defined as blowing up any point beyond the launch pad. It made it well past max-q which is the point of highest atmospheric stress on the rocket.

So yeah OK by that metric if a rocket lifted to a height of 1m above the launch pad, so technically being beyond it, before spontaneously disassembling, it's technically a success. Not 'moving goalposts'.

I'm not sure what your point is here — a stainless steel skyscraper-sized rocket powered by 33 methalox full-flow staged combustion engines just made it all the way through max-Q and most of the way to orbit before exploding on its first ever attempt! I'd definitely count that as an unqualified success.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#650

Post by colordrops »

bmitc wrote: post #248
abledon wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL they are still salty about the 'publicly funded' tag

As they ahould be. SpaceX and Tesla have received substantially more taxpayer money than NPR. Also, they weren't labeled as "publically funded". They were labeled as "U.S. state-affiliated media". That is untrue and is a political hit at the behest of Musk.

The taxpayer money is not a handout though, services are expected in return. It's not a subsidy, despite all the misinformation out there.
Post reply on HN