Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

apnews.com

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your intel example doesn't fully hold water. Chip design has taken a binning approach for decades at this point. The silicon is designed for failure in such a way that yield is maximized assuming there will be a variance in quality. Launch and iterate happens for silicon just like anything else. During the initial product launch, there is a lot of waste, but as processes are improved, microcode updated, rework proced…

It depends on what you count as a chip. Modern "chips" are actually a great many things all one one slab of silicon. Failure then knock out single components, resulting in the final chip going into one bin or another. And each of those components can be as complex as an entire "chip" from a few years ago. That is really creating reliability through numbers. Within every component any slight error will still brick tha…

But binning is largely binning against performance curves: "we doped this side of the wafer just a little too much and it's a little slow, but this one from the other side is just right" - while checking for faults (full chip scan and other manufacturing tests) result in dies being thrown out.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#752
post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"If you want peace, prepare for war" Sure our MIC has grown a bit fat on the teat, and the US government has done some very unpleasant things, but to totally boycott someone cause they work on weapons systems, I don't think is really the right mood. I believe he work(s/ed) on anti-ship guided missiles. I'm sure the Ukrainians are grateful to all those who worked on guided missiles when a Javelin pops a T-72 or the Mo…

Honestly, I don't care. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't flipping care.

Your justification is in no way a response to my preference. I don't want to celebrate people who work in this field as a form of entertainment.

It has no place in the media I consume as entertainment.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#753

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,…

Seems like the author was closer to the truth that HN gave him credit for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#754
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting thought: Starship just expended more engines on a *test* (39?) than I believe the entire SLS program has budgeted through the end of the 2020's (16 from shuttle + 18 new = 34?). edit: Never mind, it's slightly less – see the comment below correcting me. The SLS program has 40, not 34, RS-25's.

Yep. And they are trying to get Raptor 2 to less than $2M a pop (iirc). The "cattle not pets" of rocket science.

Raptor2 also is being upgraded with things like electric gimbaling vs hydraulics. I think that was a hydraulic unit at the bottom of super heavy that exploded a few sec after lift off. So... electric gimbaling it is then. ;)

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#755
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…

Interesting thought: Starship just expended more engines on a *test* (39?) than I believe the entire SLS program has budgeted through the end of the 2020's (16 from shuttle + 18 new = 34?). edit: Never mind, it's slightly less – see the comment below correcting me. The SLS program has 40, not 34, RS-25's.

i'm a big fan of spacex and poked fun at SLS with all their delays and stuck valves etc. Well now it's the SLS fans turn to do a little ribbing. I still think starship will win out in the end but I'll tip my hat to SLS.. occasionally.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#756
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…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#757

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 think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused.

"SpaceX" isn't a unified mind. It's not even a hivemind, no company is.

We keep saying "company knew about X", but it's a such a mischaracterization of how companies, or any group of humans, work. Yes, some people in the company might have known it, but for various reasons, be it poor communication, mistaken assumptions, willful ignorance, or what have you, that information wasn't acted upon. Companies have complicated and chaotic dynamics. We Do Not Have An Algorithm For Truth.

In effect, "Company knew about X" is practically a meaningless oxymoron.

Yes, the "company" may be the "responsible entity", but as a century of corporate history demonstrates, that doesn't mean very much in practice, as the individual people within the company who might theoretically be tagged can weasel out of consequences.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#758
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…

I wonder how quickly they can iterate?

they have a booster and starship outside the hangers waiting to go but the pad is going to need a lot of work.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#759
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I'm hearing it was not a failure but an unbelievable smashing success. No one expected the rocket to get to the launchpad, much less off of it. The second stage was not expected to be reached at all, it's cool that they even tried. Greatest test launch of all time. From what I've read this morning if the test flight had worked all the way it would be like man on moon levels of good.

Eh, if SpaceX had genuinely not expected the rocket to get off the launch pad, they would not have launched it. I expect their math was something like: 95% chance of enough engines lighting to launch 90% chance of clearing launch pad 60% chance of making 60 seconds of flight 30% chance of 2nd stage separation 15% chance of re-entry

I did sense a bit of sarcasm in the GP post. Not sure if you did too?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#760
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

One of my favorite things about life is that there is an explanation for everything
Post reply on HN