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

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#731

Post by mrandish » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:43 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,…

There were multiple unexpected "energetic events" seen by observers apparently due to some of the engines failing around liftoff. These "energetic events" could have contributed to greater than expected downward force under the launchpad. If correct, it seems positive that the excess energy was directed downward still permitting the liftoff. That the ship was able to continue the flight through Max-Q and up to MECO and starting the separation spin maneuver seems like a very positive sign. I believe they've already started construction of upgraded launch facilities which include fire trenches and water deluge systems. This first launch facility was basically a V 0.1 test and it appears to have done its job of getting a Starship test article in the air. It's important to remember their development strategy is pipelined and intentionally test-to-failure with multiple improving prototypes in simultaneous parallel construction. Today's test ship was already several versions old.

Also, the rocket didn't exactly "blow up", it apparently lost attitude control during the separation spin maneuver and couldn't achieve the parameters necessary for stage separation. The subsequent rotations appeared to be attempts at automated attitude recovery. The eventual termination was a controlled FTS initiated when SpaceX determined the flight was unrecoverable. I found it incredible that a supersonic rocket about twice as big as anything humans have ever launched was able to rotate several times at around 1300 Mph and over 100,000 ft altitude while maintaining structural integrity. Fortunately, it appears they were able to delay detonating the controlled demolition charges long enough to receive the vital telemetry data that was the entire reason for today's test. That this early prototype managed to load fuel, pressurize, ignite engines, clear the tower, reach MaxQ, MECO, start the separation turn and then down link all the data makes it a massive success from SpaceX's perspective. Everything after MaxQ was pure bonus territory. The engineers at SpaceX must be thrilled to be ingesting all that sweet data from hundreds of internal sensors and start comparing real-world performance against their simulation models.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#732

Post by MichaelMoser123 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:44 PM UTC

Something optimistic:

"Skating away, skating away, skating away On the thin ice of the new day"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5D9HZyYI6g

(still it's a sad event :-( )

... i think it's the ghost of the Soviet N1 project - it's quite a challenge to have more than a dozen engines working togather; all of these engines start to responate - it's downhil from thereon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9fkYIrRwbo

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#733

Post by trafficante » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

Politics ruins everything.

You can not be a fan of Musk the person and still appreciate stuff like this.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#734

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

dividedbyzero wrote: post #728

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused If there is a material chance you won’t clear the tower, building an elaborate pad is overkill. I disagree that a new mount means months of delays—SpaceX has been building these faster than legacy operators.

They'll need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater though, that may be somewhat more work.

> need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater

They have these. At their permanent launch sites. This is a test site. That the rocket reached max Q suggests this isn’t a problem needing solving right now.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#735

Post by kortex » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

vidanay wrote: post #505

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 short interview with Cal Breed was the absolute best 60 seconds of video I have seen in quite a while. The raw footage should be re-edited into a longer video.

I could watch him just doing his thing for hours. He's the epitome of all the best things about an artisan/apprentice relationship: "Here's what you did wrong, I'm not mad, but if you continue to f&ck this up it's gonna cost a lot of time, or worse, cause injury". Like just the correct amount of hardass where you learn quick and begrudge them in the moment, but at the end of the day, you know they are right. All too easy to end up too loosey goosey, or just a d!ck.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#736

Post by Cipater » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:47 PM UTC

6d6b73 wrote: post #185

Coffeewine wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't blow up on the pad. They'll be happy to blow up dozens of these, hopefully incrementally perfecting the design each time.

That's not engineering. What they did is identical to developers copying code from SO and running it to see if it works.

What SpaceX are doing in Texas is the literal definition of engineering.

What on earth do you think engineering is if building a first of its kind rocket and launching it to see how it works doesn't qualify?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#737

Post by giantrobot » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:48 PM UTC

baja_blast wrote: post #178

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…

The technological developments in the 60s/70s in aerospace never cease to amaze me. The SR-71, X-15, Saturn 5 rocket all developed when computers were less powerful than the NES yet they achieved things that no one else has been able to accomplish since (although I am sure there these have been surpassed via classified Skunk Works).

> they achieved things that no one else has been able to accomplish since

These sorts of statements are infuriating. You're dropping all of the context of past achievements (budget, political will, design goals, need, etc) and then castigating modern engineers.

The SR-71, X-15, and Saturn V achieved their design goals. There's no modern need to go back and re-achieve those goals.

The SR-71 is an amazing plane. When it was originally built there was a need for a reconnaissance plane that could fly high enough and fast enough to evade Soviet high altitude air defense systems. In the intervening years reconnaissance satellites have obviated that need. Outside of a few other tasks there's not much need for a Mach 3+ manned aircraft. Even for the tasks where one is useful the SR-71 still exists. That's not to say a replacement couldn't be built today. In fact many believe one exists in the form of the rumored Aurora.

It's just ridiculous to make assertions about "no one" being able to accomplish those projects today. If NASA or the DOD put out an RFP and had a budget for a modern X-15 it could definitely be built.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#738

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

RoyGBivCap wrote: post #580

a4isms wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#739

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #697

outworlder wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> couldn't they have delayed and tested when they had a more reasonable chance of success Probably not. These are new designs. Modelling only goes so far. The way you learn is testing, refining and repeating. I frankly didn’t expect it to clear the tower; max Q on the first shot is a testament to how far computational methods have come.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#740

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 6:53 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 was a test, they didn't have anything left to test except for a flight. delaying would be pointless, everything else had already been tested.

edit: one other thing, they crashed and burned a lot of starships too. I don't see this being that different it's just bigger.