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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#801

Post by ragebol »

rurounijones wrote: post #800
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,…

Come to think of it; I never saw the water deluge system come to life... did it?

There is no deluge system, yet. But the aftermath of the launch today shows it really is needed

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#802

Post by threeseed »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #761
cratermoon wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I dont think it was close to the truth at all. They predict shattered glass,damaged foundations of beachside homes, and people scarred for life by the launch. This was hyperbolic fearmongering. The actual launch was very close to baseline expectations. The lack of launch pad flame channels was common knowlegle, and no great insight. This entire blog is dedicated to environmental complants about SpaceX operations. If…

Would strongly disagree. Reading the article it doesn't sound like fear-mongering at all.

In fact their concerns about FAA cutting corners in allowing SpaceX to build such a facility seem quite legitimate. Especially if they are passionate about protecting sensitive environment habitat which is a voice that we need more of in this world.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#803

Post by pfannkuchen »

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #716
mkaic wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not my problem. Space X can define their limit for what counts as success as they see fit. I totally acknowledge that getting this huge thing to any height is an achievement. But there's still a mismatch between what the general audience would label 'success' and what they do. So maybe talking about 'milestones' or something to that effect would be better. After all, in itself it is not yet a useful workhorse…

I can't tell if you are serious. The equivalent would be: a child is trying to draw an owl. Instead of praising the child for drawing a crude owl on their first attempt, we are disappointed that the child did not meet the final goal of drawing a photorealistic owl at some point in the future. Just because the general public has a wrong idea about something does not mean that it is reasonable to reinforce the wrong idea.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#804

Post by bmitc »

idontwantthis wrote: post #618
bmitc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were the goalposts set arbitrarily low? What did the Apollo program define as success for Saturn V test launches?

Well they managed to kill two astronauts in a rocket without even launching it.

That's another discussion because it didn't have anything to do with the rocket and was an issue with the command module during a simulation, if you are referring to the Apollo 1 accident, which unfortunately killed all three astronauts in the cabin. And it certainly wasn't designated a success. They also completely altered designs as a result of that event.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#805

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

sebsebmc wrote: post #573
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.

From a PR perspective, I'm surprised that they don't have a procedure where they announce that they're considering to terminate, then announce that they'll blow it up, before actually doing it, if time allows.

I think there is a significant difference in public perception between "it blew up during the test" and "the test wasn't going to go anywhere good so they blew it up".

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#806

Post by urbane_myth »

marktangotango wrote: post #431
Galxeagle wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a SpaceX fan reading through the post-launch analysis, this was definitely more of a success than the headline applies, but 'massive' is a stretch. Most commentary I'm seeing put it at a C or B-. It's true that there was a number of areas where the risk is now retired, but three engines out at launch with three more dropping out along the way hints that their engine design still isn't as reliable as it needs to be…

In fact it was a really amazing "engine out" test. The thing appeared to been shedding engines all the way to RUD. I imagine these engines were all early generation, might as well fly them, units. It's easy to imagine a calculus of "we're pretty sure X% of engines will fail, but we only need Y% for this flight, go ahead and fly them". But yeah, Musk once said there's a gigawatt of power going through these Raptor eng…

I actually feel safer about someday flying on one because it kept going even after at least one of the engines detonated during ascent.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#807

Post by hef19898 »

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…

Just in case, if Arianne 6s first launch fails as well, can cut them as much slack as we cut SpaceX here in HN? Or do we go full Ariane cannit builf rockets, because of legacy and Europe blocking innovation?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#808

Post by cwillu »

sidibe wrote: post #228
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm tasked with recording test data for x, y, and z and I only record x, is that a success? Now I need to launch another to try for the y, and z. Edit: What would an unsuccessful test look like then?

You are very brave or didn't read the room :) I think this could have been more successful

‹Baby stands up and takes 2 steps before falling over›

sidibe: “I think this could have been more successful”

:)

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#809

Post by marktangotango »

mrandish wrote: post #731
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,…

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 a…

> I believe they've already started construction of upgraded launch facilities which include fire trenches and water deluge systems.

Ah, so excavating the launch tower was intentional; demo tower 0.1 to make room for tower 0.2!

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#810

Post by bmitc »

colordrops wrote: post #650
bmitc wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both Tesla and SpaceX have absolutely received grants, not just contracts and loans, from the government. Just last year, SpaceX requested and applied for $886 million grant from the FCC, which is nearly three times the annual budget of NPR. They were denied for that particular one, but they appealed the decision, complaining about it.

I'm not sure what misinformation you are referring to. It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.

Another example, from Tesla's own report submitted to the SEC in 2020:

> As part of various governmental responses to the pandemic granted to companies globally, we received certain payroll related benefits which helped to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our financial results.

This was at a time in which Musk was railing against government bailouts. Tesla never gave more details on the government handouts this particular line was referring to.

It goes on and on.

Post reply on HN