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

Starship Flight 7

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#131

Post by mh- »

TechTechTech wrote: post #92
terramex wrote: post #76

Looks like second stage broke up over Caribbean, videos of the debris (as seen from ground): https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662?t=HdHF... https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800 https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115 Moment of the breakup: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE52_hVSeQz/

Where will this debris land? Can it impact airplane routes?

https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1880032865209184354

>Commercial flights are turning around to avoid potential debris.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#132

Post by timewizard »

echoangle wrote: post #44
ceejayoz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have lost the second stage, though.

Yes, very much looks like it. I wonder how much of the second stage flight is autonomous and if they need to continually need to give it a go to continue, or if it aborts automatically after some time of lost telemetry. But maybe it already exploded anyways.

The flight control loops are strongly latched. They are constantly checking the state of discretes, control surfaces, and intended guidance. If any critical parameter gets out of range for a period of time or if any group of standard parameters gets out of range the vehicle will simply cease powered flight.

In the Space Shuttle, given that it was human rated, the "Range Safety" system was completely manual. It was controlled by a pair of individuals and they manually made the call to send the ARM/FIRE sequence to the range safety detonators.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#133

Post by charles_f »

ortusdux wrote: post #61
charles_f wrote: post #39

That "landing" (is it still considered a landing if it's chopsticked a few meters before it touches the ground?) is so unnatural it almost looks fake. So big and unimaginable that it feels like watching fx on a movie! The close-up camera right after was interesting, I thought it captured on the grid fins, but it looks like there are two small purpose-built knobs for that. The times we live in!

IIRC, the grid fins are not strong enough to support the rocket, and reinforcing them would add too much weight to the vehicle. The plan is to catch the second stage the same way, and the starship in flight now is the first to have mockup pins to test the aerodynamics and see if they cause issues during reentry.

I was surprised they were landing them on those fins, makes more sense now.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#134

Post by [deleted] »

egglemonsoup wrote: post #67
numba888 wrote: post #57

4M viewers. comparable to top politics events. ship looks to be lost. this was the main part, so it's almost complete failure.

these tests are designed to fail — the data collected now will ensure they don't blow up with actual people on them. test seems like a success to me

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#135

Post by pixl97 »

londons_explore wrote: post #81
modeless wrote: post #36

Oh no they lost the ship after the booster landed! Seems like they lost an engine, then I saw fire around the rear flap hinges in the last images before they cut out, and then the telemetry showed more engines shutting down until it froze. During ascent I also noticed a panel near the front fins that seemed to be loose and flapping. Probably not related but who knows. Edit: Here's a video of the aftermath. Strangely…

> fire around the rear flap hinges I believe it's pretty hard to have a fire at that altitude. You need a leak of both methane and oxygen, and an ignition source. I wonder if perhaps one of the engines split open and the exhaust wasn't going into the engine bell?

I mean blowing liquid oxygen on something with a hot heat source beside it typically turns things to fuel you wouldn't expect. Like metal.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#136

Post by timewizard »

echoangle wrote: post #63
sneak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...which has nothing to do with NASA the US government organization, or the NSF (FYI). It's just some independent streamers who apparently know you can't get trademark claims against you by the federal government.

I’m not sure about the NASA name itself, but apparently the graphic stuff is protected by a special law: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-V/part-1221 So you wouldn’t exactly get a copyright claim when abusing the NASA logo but it’s still illegal. I couldn’t find anything about the NASA word itself though, just some articles reciting guidelines by NASA not to imply an endorsement by NASA. I don’t know how…

You cannot _misuse_ any official government logo or seal. Which effectively means creating a fake document with a real seal and then publishing it. The concern is fraud not sharing content.

You are allowed to basically reproduce the work without any worries whatsoever.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#137

Post by modeless »

pixl97 wrote: post #135
londons_explore wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fire around the rear flap hinges I believe it's pretty hard to have a fire at that altitude. You need a leak of both methane and oxygen, and an ignition source. I wonder if perhaps one of the engines split open and the exhaust wasn't going into the engine bell?

I mean blowing liquid oxygen on something with a hot heat source beside it typically turns things to fuel you wouldn't expect. Like metal.

Good point, must have been an O2 leak oxidizing random stuff.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#138

Post by s1artibartfast »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #119
terramex wrote: post #76

Looks like second stage broke up over Caribbean, videos of the debris (as seen from ground): https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662?t=HdHF... https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800 https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115 Moment of the breakup: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE52_hVSeQz/

Given that the engine telemetry shown on the broadcast showed the engines going out one by one over a period of some seconds, I could easily imagine some sort of catastrophic failure on a single engine that cascaded.

It could be many things, plumbing to the engines, tank leak, ect. You could see fire on the control flap actuators, so the ship interior was engulfed in fire at the same time the first engine was out.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#139

Post by JumpCrisscross »

terramex wrote: post #76

Looks like second stage broke up over Caribbean, videos of the debris (as seen from ground): https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662?t=HdHF... https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800 https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115 Moment of the breakup: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE52_hVSeQz/

Wow. It reminds me of the comet scene from Andor. I wonder if suborbital pyrotechnics will become a thing one day.
Post reply on HN