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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#911

Post by rblatz »

sixothree wrote: post #752
kortex wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

No one cares what you think.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#912

Post by mkaic »

bottlepalm wrote: post #875
mkaic wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's incredible to me how good Musk can be at running SpaceX and simultaneously how bad he can be at running Twitter — strengths and weaknesses, I suppose...

I use Twitter, not much has changed for me. Tweets still work, my feed still works, what’s the issue?

More frequent outages, ads in replies, a rather silly new verification system, viewcounts being visible on tweets, Musk publicly mocking a disabled employee, etc. I don't hate Elon, but the dude should really leave Twitter ASAP. He's an engineer, not a people person — I don't think he should be in charge of a social network, a service entirely focused on social interaction.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#913

Post by cubefox »

ohitsdom wrote: post #413
alexobenauer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More info on why that's necessary here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/17878/why-does-the... Edit: "that" = one flip; not the many we saw today.

This isn't what the commentators are referring to when they talk about "the flip". Rockets traditionally have some type of separation mechanism to separate stage 1 and stage 2. This is usually some type of pyro charge or an actual pneumatic pusher. SpaceX wants to avoid this complexity with Starship and instead "throw" off stage 2 (Starship) by doing a flip with the booster. I don't believe it's been done before for…

A flip for separation sounds like it would waste valuable thrust / fuel. Interesting that they think it's worth it.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#914

Post by mr_toad »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #551
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…

I agree with this assessment and probably the biggest problem in the test. After that, they still have a fair way to go on Raptor reliability; I was a bit disappointed with the number of engine outs: clearly the engines have not arrived. I think the big win of the day was the overall resilience of the vehicle. It seemed to handle (what looked to be) possibly explosive engine failures and kept going and stayed intact.…

> After that, they still have a fair way to go on Raptor reliability

They seem to have worked fine individually and in smaller groups. There could be issues with the plumbing, which they seem to be iterating on quite a lot with the newer boosters.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#915

Post by cubefox »

kortex wrote: post #335
justin66 wrote: post #37

Did the range officer destroy the rocket because it wasn't going to separate, or did the tumble destroy the rocket?

I strongly suspect the range safety officer pulled the trigger. It did a bunch of unexpected tumbles, so I think if it were flight termination system, that would have popped it earlier. I don't think it came apart of its own account, the RUD was quite rapid.

I don't think a manual flight termination is considered a "RUD".

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#916

Post by JKCalhoun »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #578
stephc_int13 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like this. I fully understand that rocket launches are going to fail a few times before succeeding, I don't get the need for gaslight. This feels like North Korea style propaganda.

Where is the gas lighting? They said getting off the launch pad would be a win going into it and people are pointing this out after the fact. There is no hypocrisy or doublethink involved

Musk said something before the launch to the effect "Clearing the tower is a success." Musk said after something to the effect, "Expecting perfect would be crazy."

And here I am thinking about the Saturn launches that von Braun oversaw 55-ish years ago.

(Saw the launch this morning, BTW. Just happened to be road-tripping in Texas this week and thought we'd pop down for a look-see.)

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#917

Post by mr_toad »

kortex wrote: post #702
sandworm101 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a contingency. We don't know what the intention or internal expectation was. What we have are public statements, which are generally more conservative in order that every success be an amazing surprise, every failure an expected event. What SpaceX was internally hoping for, what they were aiming for, and the details o…

I don't need to know the internal - it's pretty obvious. When you are test launching a rocket, MaxQ is the moment to test (aside from ignition, which you can test with static fire, so not really "test launching a rocket"). So SpaceX wants to test the booster launch; they have tested everything else on the ground that they realistically can at this point. That means ignition, get off the pad, MaxQ. Everything after th…

Apart from surviving ignition, surviving maxQ, the other tricky bits will be surviving re-entry and landing.

I think if most people had to pick the most likely failure mode it would have been either blowing up on the pad, or burning up on re-entry.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#918

Post by bottlepalm »

mkaic wrote: post #912
bottlepalm wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Twitter, not much has changed for me. Tweets still work, my feed still works, what’s the issue?

More frequent outages, ads in replies, a rather silly new verification system, viewcounts being visible on tweets, Musk publicly mocking a disabled employee, etc. I don't hate Elon, but the dude should really leave Twitter ASAP. He's an engineer, not a people person — I don't think he should be in charge of a social network, a service entirely focused on social interaction.

Meh, I haven't experienced any of those things. The view count is useful for me at least, less of a black box. The old Twitter didn't really seem to care about adding new features.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#919

Post by panick21_ »

cubefox wrote: post #904
panick21_ wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years and another 10 billion $ on Starship. It would still be far superior to SLS. > maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space f…

Starship is the reason why SLS and Orion should be cancelled immediately.

I disagree. I would be in favor of canceling SLS and Orion even if Starship doesn't exist.

SLS/Orion is simply the wrong architecture, and the wrong strategy. Independent of Starship or not. I have been arguing this since 2017, long before Starship was relevant.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#920

Post by jiggawatts »

octobus2021 wrote: post #887
outworlder wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Apparently not, since: 1) the launch site was damaged 2) several engines did not work 3) the RUD I'd say, there's plenty that they could have tested before launching.

Keep in mind that the B7 and S24 were both obsolete designs. B7 had previous gen Raptor engines, with next gen being (presumably) simpler design and more reliable; it had hydraulics-driven mechanism to gimbal the engines (the next gen has electric motors); and the engines had less isolation/protection against RUD of neighboring engines than B9 and above. I'm less familiar with S24 but do know that its design is obsol…

My understanding is that the engine on the B7 aren’t really powerful enough, so if a few go out, then the rest are just “fighting gravity” and not really accelerating the ship.

The new engines should have more net acceleration and should therefore tolerate a few engines failing.

Post reply on HN