Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 420 posts

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#81

Post by RecycledEle »

Sebb767 wrote: post #9
tromp wrote: post #3

> "The most likely root cause for the booster RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) was determined to be filter blockage where liquid oxygen is supplied to the engines, leading to a loss of inlet pressure in engine oxidizer turbopumps that eventually resulted in one engine failing in a way that resulted in loss of the vehicle," the company stated. "SpaceX has since implemented hardware changes inside future booster oxi…

Why do those rockets have a fuel filter at all? I get why we have them in cars; we refuel quite often, in dirty environments and with possibly low quality fuel. For space rockets, it seems that it would be (comparatively) easy to ensure that the tanks are clean and the fuel is of high quality. On the other hand, if there wasn't any dirt, the filters would not have clogged, so I guess it does make sense after all.

Thos

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#82

Post by RecycledEle »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #11
Sebb767 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do those rockets have a fuel filter at all? I get why we have them in cars; we refuel quite often, in dirty environments and with possibly low quality fuel. For space rockets, it seems that it would be (comparatively) easy to ensure that the tanks are clean and the fuel is of high quality. On the other hand, if there wasn't any dirt, the filters would not have clogged, so I guess it does make sense after all.

Most rockets don't have fuel filters, but this requires their tanks to be kept in a much more strict state of cleanliness, and any failure to do so would result in mission failures. SpaceX has long had a very different idea about FOD than most other rocket companies, famously Merlin engine qualification testing contains ingesting stainless steel nuts.

Those are big tanks.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#83

Post by lupusreal »

DinaCoder99 wrote: post #72
bradley13 wrote: post #66

I haven't watched launches since the space shuttle days. I have watched both of the Starship launches, and will watch all of them that I can. Excitement about space is back with a vengeance!

> Excitement about space What does this even mean if we can't scrape together funding for NASA

Who says NASA isn't getting funding? They're getting billions of dollars for Artemis. If your complaint is that NASA is contracting out to companies... they always have.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#84

Post by rbanffy »

Sanzig wrote: post #79
AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half the point of special forces is to be covert, which is made hard when your transportation is a giant rocket streaking through the suborbital zone.

But imagine the PsyOps impact of the enemy looking up and seeing the US raining down literal ODSTs on them ;) Realistically, they'd be dropping into an allied base in-theatre with a pad able to support a Starship landing, and then taking conventional means the rest of the way. Of course, I suspect that when it comes to "drop operators from space" vs. "train extra operators who can be forward deployed," the latter is…

Imagine how much of a sitting duck is a rocket glowing infrared on a ballistic trajectory to the landing site.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#85

Post by lupusreal »

ortusdux wrote: post #54
rob74 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I'd rather have such "bonkers" tests than the other extreme, like NASA not thinking about what could happen if pieces of foam from the external fuel tank impacted the Space Shuttle on launch until it was too late ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaste... ).

Or not thinking that an O-ring might experience temperatures below freezing in Florida https://priceonomics.com/the-space-shuttle-challenger-explos...

The really shitty thing is they knew early on the O-rings were slipping and partially extruding themselves, which wasn't part of the original design. They shrugged and ignored this, which then opened the door for disaster when the O-rings behaved differently (and still wrong) when cold. If they had pumped the brakes when the initial deviation from the design was discovered, it wouldn't have ended in disaster.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#86

Post by user_7832 »

Xirgil wrote: post #76
DinaCoder99 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excitement about space What does this even mean if we can't scrape together funding for NASA

It means that private industry is doing a better job of allocating funding and meeting demand.

I think NASA also has higher public/pr standards they’re held to. A few spacex failures no one cares much about. If nasa fails a few times everyone (particularly more conservative leaning folk) starts complaining about their precious taxpayer money. Hence NASA likely sticks to project that are very low risk. I’m not saying this is good or bad per se, but public opinion is what it is.

It’s also a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don’t with nasa - play safe and people complain they’re not doing much, why are they funded. Play more risky and inevitably end up with a failure, get questioned why they’re wasting money. I don’t think I’ve seen much criticisms of when SpaceX or blue origin win govt grants for funding.

Again, this isn’t to say that enterprises don’t deserve govt support if they’re truly helping (lobby concerns aside). But it’s a multifaceted issue.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#87

Post by dotnet00 »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #61
dotnet00 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploded is a loaded term that has been ruined by media to make it so that people interpret even development testing as a failure. RUD conveys the same idea of the vehicle losing structural integrity, serves as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor for those who understand it, and limits the number of idiots screaming "look this project is obviously a scam" slightly.

in 10 years RUD will mean exploded, that's how language works. retarded used to be a medical term to replace loaded terms such as imbecile. You can see how successful that was. It turns out, dressing up an idea does absolutely nothing since it's the idea that has the negative connotation. And why shouldn't "exploded" be viewed in a negative light?

The difference is between viewing exploded as simply something going wrong and viewing it as an indication of general failure.

A starship prototype exploding in a flight right now is completely different from a Falcon 9 exploding in a flight. With the former it's almost desirable by making points of improvement obvious, with the latter it's a potential capacity crisis for the US launch industry.

Yet that's not really how most journalists will report it, and also isn't how most people who don't actively keep up with developments will interpret it.

Also, as you say, retarded replaced imbecile, and since then retarded has also been replaced, same will happen with RUD. Not really a big deal since they'll just change their language usage too.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#88

Post by robertoandred »

bradley13 wrote: post #66

I haven't watched launches since the space shuttle days. I have watched both of the Starship launches, and will watch all of them that I can. Excitement about space is back with a vengeance!

Didn't SpaceX stop streaming their launches?

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#89

Post by lupusreal »

rbanffy wrote: post #60
njarboe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a pretty large market for a trip to space and an hour flight from LA to New Zealand, New York-Sydney, London-Shanghai, etc. for $10-20k. What an amazing combination that would be.

Add a couple hours for the trip between town and pad, security and so on. Still it's 3-4 hours.

I don't think there are many cities that have suitable launch sites near them. It's unlikely they'll ever get approval to launch over populated areas, or even from most populated coastal locations.

Also, the issue of getting boosters to all of these destinations seems like a problem. Planes don't split in two and have half return to the launch site but Starships do. So you could land the upper stage in Tokyo, but then what? How do you get a booster there for the return journey?

Personally I doubt they'll even use these to bring people to orbit anytime soon. I think they're purpose built for launching massive LEO constellations.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#90

Post by marcosdumay »

cubefox wrote: post #13

It's funny that SpaceX is using the term "rapid unscheduled disassembly" unironically, despite it originally being a humourous euphemism.

After NASA decided to use lithobraking as a perfectly valid landing procedure, I decided nothing from rocket engineering would surprise me anymore.
Post reply on HN