Starship Flight 7 • Hacker News Board

Re: Starship Flight 7

#191

Post by m4rtink » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:22 AM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #91

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/

Probably one of the most expensive fireworks (but probably still cheaper than the first Ariane 5 launch), but it looks very cool.

I think the N1 test flights are also a contender. I still remember something about kerosene raining for 15 minutes after the explosion.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#192

Post by zwily » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:24 AM UTC

_moof wrote: post #178

Beefed it the day after New Glenn makes orbit on the first try. Different philosophies, I know, but if I were at SpaceX I would be pretty unhappy right now.

New Glenn lost its booster yesterday. Space is hard, tests will have failures.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#193

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:24 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146

lysace wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

upvoted and flagged.

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#194

Post by ralfd » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

verzali wrote: post #190

afavour wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the debris has no effect wherever it lands, I agree with you

A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it... https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc2...

Understandable, but an over reaction. Any debris not burning up is falling down after minutes.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#195

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

seb1204 wrote: post #156

ricardobeat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds... unlikely, to say the least. The ship blew up at 145km altitude over Turks and Caicos. Debris would fall thousands of kilometers to the east, if anything survives re-entry. EDIT: at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down. For satellite re-entry, the usual estimated ground contact point is something like 8000km+ downrange [1]. There is little chanc…

Certainly causing delays. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-17/spacex-launch-to-go-a...

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#196

Post by anothertroll456 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

anothertroll456 wrote: post #172

teractiveodular wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last one is stage separation, not an explosion. You can clearly see the "exploded" rocket continuing to fly afterwards.

Nope. That's definitely an explosion (source: I'm in the rocket business). However it may not be an explosion of the whole stage. Probably of the engine section.

Nevermind. It was probably the FTS like other people pointed out.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#197

Post by jmpeax » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:27 AM UTC

I wonder if the second stage failure was related to the metal flap seen here on the very left of the image: https://imgur.com/a/VS8IPdv

Re: Starship Flight 7

#198

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:27 AM UTC

zqna wrote: post #183

Can someone tell me what's the point of all this? To export capitalism outside of solar system?

Just to Mars, and maybe the asteroid belt. See [0].

[0] Expanse, The.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#199

Post by Kye » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:28 AM UTC

verzali wrote: post #190

afavour wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the debris has no effect wherever it lands, I agree with you

A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it... https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc2...

Does SpaceX bother with NOTAM for its launches?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM

It seems like the flights should have been planned around it so no diversion would be needed.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#200

Post by dmurray » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 12:30 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #155

ricardobeat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds... unlikely, to say the least. The ship blew up at 145km altitude over Turks and Caicos. Debris would fall thousands of kilometers to the east, if anything survives re-entry. EDIT: at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down. For satellite re-entry, the usual estimated ground contact point is something like 8000km+ downrange [1]. There is little chanc…

Arlines are extremely cautious around these kinds of one off events. It’s not about the calculated risks, but the uncertainty around if they have the right information in the first place. Sure it may have broken up at 145km miles, but what if someone messed up and it actually was 14.5km etc.

No, airlines do not build in a safety factor sufficient to cover an important measurement being off by a factor of 10.

They don't ground flights because the pilot might load 2,000 litres of fuel instead of 20,000 litres. They don't take evasive action in case the other plane is travelling at 5,000 knots instead of 500 knots. They don't insist on a 30-km runway because the runway published as 3 km might only be 300 metres.