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

211–220 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#211

Post by m4rtink »

rigrassm wrote: post #96
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.

Spoken like someone who is generating their opinion from their channel name alone. Those "independent streamers" provide live launch streams with multiple feeds using their own equipment and to top it off they have numerous very knowledgeable hosts for all their streams. At this point I suspect they are covering every US based launch from all the major players. Hell, today they broadcasted both the New Glenn and Star…

Frankly, their coverage of New Glenn was quite a bit better than the official stream. :P

Re: Starship Flight 7

#212

Post by gunian »

Any idea how long it took them to get the Falcon right?

Or is comparing dev timelines for both a moot point because they are different classes of rockets

Re: Starship Flight 7

#213

Post by [deleted] »

modeless wrote: post #137
pixl97 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#214

Post by ralusek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
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.

> one day

today!

Re: Starship Flight 7

#216

Post by Evidlo »

dmurray wrote: post #200
Retric wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

What if the information comes outside a system they control or organization they have no prior experience with?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#217

Post by m4rtink »

numba888 wrote: post #93
egglemonsoup wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

they didn't get the telemetry after, what it was, 16 min(?) hope they'll find the reason which will be hard without black boxes like on airplanes. as every engineer knows it works flawlessly only at the end. if ever. the booster was the same, great, but not surprising.

IIRC they had 30 cameras on board & who knows how many sensors (probably hudreds ?).

So even if an engine bay fire burned the electronics and interrupted all coms (or FTS blew it up) they should already have a lot of data by that point showing how it went wrong.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#218

Post by s1artibartfast »

walrus01 wrote: post #204
consumer451 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the huge spread of the debris, it must have been a decent sized boom, no? I mean that's got to be 10's of miles wide in this video. https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115

the flight termination system is sort of a shaped charge that's designed to rupture the oxidizer and fuel tanks. Even if only a few % fuel remains, it'll be a big boom.

For context, The lower stage reportedly has 150 tons of propellant on board when it lands.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#219

Post by ceejayoz »

marssaxman wrote: post #77
victorbojica wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if it doesn't explode and they just lost control over it? I'm mostly curios of the risks at that altitude.

The launch license requires them to build in a "flight termination system" which makes it explode if they lose control over it.

That system didn’t work on the first big test flight, when it went spinning end over end. Part of the reason there was an FAA investigation.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#220

Post by ceejayoz »

kklisura wrote: post #118
paulpauper wrote: post #7

of course, no space x event is complete without the scam fake streams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1VbZoYSyzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMG8BbUjwRk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-uQNSxqQHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYuUj777a0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqsGPQnAP-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAC4JzHqRk4

I blame SpaceX for this as they do not have official youtube stream. This is just amateurish.

They used to, before Musk bought Twitter.
Post reply on HN