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

Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 413 posts

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#391

Post by exDM69 »

dotancohen wrote: post #370
exDM69 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In vanilla KSP1 with a reasonable orbital launcher, fly up to 1000m altitude and tap D on your keyboard 1 to 10 times. Then hands off until 2nd stage and then throttle down to avoid overshooting the apoapsis. Finding the correct number of key taps to get the right pitch angle is the key. The throttle can only help so much.

Will do, thanks. 1000 m is in fact much lower than I usually pitch. Off the pad I've been giving just a touch of pitch to ensure that the rocket is on the right trajectory, but didn't start the gravity turn until maybe 5000 m or so to get out of the thick atmosphere sooner. Yes, I would have quite the AoA for a little while. Thank you. Though I don't expect to open KSP any time in the near future, I love to know how…

1000m is much higher than real rockets pitch over, but good for KSP with forgiving aerodynamic stress. It's just a convenient round number and gives a few seconds of breathing room to make sure the fiery end of the rocket points to the ground before start of maneuvering.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#392

Post by euroderf »

4ggr0 wrote: post #389
euroderf wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or soma.fm secret agent radio (lots of bossa nova)

My dad seems to love soma.fm, because he mentions it every time we talk about music :') Guess I have to check it out now.

Many many stations there

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#394

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

f-securus wrote: post #361
jordanb wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it might have been back when the shuttle did it in 1981.

The shuttle that cost 450 million per launch? (And disposable boosters)

Moving the goalposts. I didn't say it wasn't revolutionary either, just that they haven't gotten to that part yet.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#395

Post by dotancohen »

exDM69 wrote: post #391
dotancohen wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will do, thanks. 1000 m is in fact much lower than I usually pitch. Off the pad I've been giving just a touch of pitch to ensure that the rocket is on the right trajectory, but didn't start the gravity turn until maybe 5000 m or so to get out of the thick atmosphere sooner. Yes, I would have quite the AoA for a little while. Thank you. Though I don't expect to open KSP any time in the near future, I love to know how…

1000m is much higher than real rockets pitch over, but good for KSP with forgiving aerodynamic stress. It's just a convenient round number and gives a few seconds of breathing room to make sure the fiery end of the rocket points to the ground before start of maneuvering.

I do remember the Shuttle pitch and roll real early, though I thought that was to point the antennas (K-band was it?) at the receivers.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#396

Post by inglor_cz »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #342
zer0c00ler wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?

I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.

I wonder, who decides which space companies are "reputable" and based on which criteria.

It is quite a manipulative word to use.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#397

Post by bandyaboot »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #385
bandyaboot wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won’t put starship into orbit until they can test relight. They won’t risk, nor would they be allowed to risk putting it up there without a demonstrated ability to bring it back down in a controlled manner.

> They won’t put starship into orbit until they can test relight. Why can't they test relight? Also, they are already filing paperwork for IFT-4: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=cu... "Application includes a sub-orbital first stage booster and an orbital second stage"

They can test relight, but my point was that they wouldn't do it with Starship in orbit, because if it doesn't work, then they have no idea where it's coming back down. But maybe that's not as much of a problem as I had assumed given what's stated in the FCC application.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#398

Post by gorkish »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #267
gorkish wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this would all be true, if it were true. It is likely to become true at IFT-4 but they are very demonstrably not quite where you say they are. This was still a suborbital flight and they cannot do much of anything that is commercially practical on suborbital flights (like launch satellites, even if they raise their apogee). They appear to have not had good control authority in coast and reentry. They did not do a…

> This was still a suborbital flight and they cannot do much of anything that is commercially practical on suborbital flights If they had flown a slightly steeper ascent and burned for a little longer (possibly a minute if not less), they would have ended in a stable orbit. Not doing that was intentional. They do not need engine relight capability to reach orbit - plenty of orbital rockets exist that cannot relight t…

> They do not need engine relight capability to reach orbit - plenty of orbital rockets exist that cannot relight their final stage

I’m sure they will have this thing plez dispensing cybetrucks all the way to mars in short order. But I’m also pretty sure that the FAA and whoever SpaceX buys their insurance from are gonna need pretty good assurance that they can control where that thing comes down. Expendable orbital stages are designed and engineered for safe end of life operations and uncontrolled reentery. Starship is not.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#399

Post by dotnet00 »

cubefox wrote: post #274
ta1243 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I've seen them (not sure which specific ones) they've been either 1) Whining about donations (and shoutouts every few seconds) 2) Whining about the cost of cameras (I remember one of the early exploding and the commentator spent the next 10 minutes going on about his expensive cameras) Yes they are funded by begging, that's not something I'm interested in listening too. I've seen US TV occasionally, I find i…

The official SpaceX hosts often don't mention when something goes wrong or looks bad. For example, they didn't comment on the ongoing tumbling of the ship. Of course they want to present themselves in the best possible light. Other streamers are more independent, they do point out those things.

I think the official hosts avoid it because they don't want to have potential speculation be treated as a fact. Mainstream media reporting around these launches is already mostly garbage in quality, having the hosts speculating might make it worse.

Like, Starship was tumbling, but until we saw that it didn't manage to maintain the orientation for reentry, it was possible that the tumbling and venting was expected.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#400

Post by engineer_22 »

senectus1 wrote: post #367
engineer_22 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bright side: booster made it all the way to splashdown

haha, it was travelling at 1100 km/h... Not so much a splashdown but a smashdown :-D

to have been a fly on the wall... was surely a site to behold :)
Post reply on HN