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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#951

Post by justin66 »

panick21_ wrote: post #869
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 think SpaceX rockets don't have a traditional range safety officer anymore. That function was replaced by software. I suspect the software has certain conditions that will cause destruction. But it might also have been manual intervention.

They might or might not be permitted by the FAA to do some unconventional manning of that role when they fly out of BFE, Texas. (but to what end?) I'm sure they do things traditionally when their rockets fly from NASA or Space Force facilities.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#952

Post by chasd00 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #935
pohl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. On the other hand, the SLS — having a launch escape system and not requiring sophisticated acrobatics in order to reach land safely — is totally the ship I'd rather be on.

Maybe someone can explain to me why SpaceX lands their boosters? I would think weight of fuel required to land booster + legs + steering fins would be much greater than a parachute or two and a water landing. That weight savings would be a cost savings as well as more payload that could be lifted (also a cost savings). Would the booster be destroyed landing in the ocean by parachute?

it's the salt water, it corrodes and ruins everything metal it touches.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#953

Post by techdragon »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #935
pohl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. On the other hand, the SLS — having a launch escape system and not requiring sophisticated acrobatics in order to reach land safely — is totally the ship I'd rather be on.

Maybe someone can explain to me why SpaceX lands their boosters? I would think weight of fuel required to land booster + legs + steering fins would be much greater than a parachute or two and a water landing. That weight savings would be a cost savings as well as more payload that could be lifted (also a cost savings). Would the booster be destroyed landing in the ocean by parachute?

Salt water is bad … evil stuff … they already try to avoid siting on the pad as much as possible to reduce salt spray corrosion from the sea air… even the barge trip back to land is less than ideal… salt water is the enemy of any complicated metal objects… so they are doing everything possible to avoid hitting the salt water and to keep the rocket as far away from it as practicable.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#954

Post by rodoxcasta »

dang wrote: post #579
nomilk wrote: post #157

Anyone reading the headline could easily be misled: this was a massive success. Some context: - This was the first "integrated test" of the Starship space craft with its booster - The whole thing together was 120 meters tall - It will be one order of magnitude larger than the current largest rocket in terms of carrying capacity (~150 tonnes if it needs to return the booster, 250 if it doesn't) - There's 5 more of the…

What would be a more neutral and accurate headline?

First orbital attempt of Startship got halfway there before exploding

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#955

Post by kanbara »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #664
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…

>How many here are actual engineers by profession? Almost none, because "software engineers" aren't _actual_ Engineers! (ducks for cover) But really, this was a huge step in the right direction on the cutting edge of propulsion science and spaceflight. SpaceX will iterate and in a few months/years everyone here will be telling you how "they always knew it would work" and "starship succeeding was obvious"

it’s great about cutting edge tech and spaceflight, but could do without the needless callout.

i and many engineers i know build, support, and run life-critical systems, emergency systems, flight software, and more.

software absolutely needs more discipline but to be so derisive isn’t ideal.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#956

Post by intrasight »

fwlr wrote: post #224
intrasight wrote: post #170

When it started doing cartwheels and the announcer said "beginning the flip for stage separation" I was like "WTF does that mean? That can't be nominal!"

The plan for Starship’s separation from the Super Heavy booster stage does include a 180 degree flip!

But doesn't that result in Starship pointing in the wrong direction after separation? I get that it's the right direction for the booster. Also a flip seems much more risky than the well-understood current separation mechanisms.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#957

Post by jayzalowitz »

detaro wrote: post #949
dfgdfg34545456 wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SpaceX did the X, we got max Q. What does this mean?

max Q is the point of largest aerodynamic load during a launch/flight.

ELI5: The atmosphere is pushing back against you, like how you feel wind when you run, but as you go higher in the air there is less of it to push back against you, so at a certain point the push back is less.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#958

Post by positr0n »

travisgriggs wrote: post #66

One of the new graphics that showed up on the dashboard was that of the engines lit. There were at least 2 on the outer ring that were fed from TO, and a few more winked out during the flight. I’m curious how many off engines the system tolerates. How many do they anticipate regularly? I’ve never noticed if Falcon 9s periodically run as a Falcon 8 or 7? All and all, ‘‘twas an awesome sight. Kudos to all those cheerin…

I recall a few Falcon 9 launches that ended up with 8 engines. It is definitely designed to handle that (although maybe not for the extreme performance cases? Not sure)

At least once they lost the booster when they were planning on recovering it because they had to run the ascent phase on only 8 engines and burned enough extra fuel the booster didn't have enough fuel to complete the boost back and landing.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#959

Post by moralestapia »

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,…

Came here to point this out.

The dark ages still lure within us.

I thought that article raised some valid points, but fanbois gonna fanboi and don't dare you speak wrong of their master.

Post reply on HN