Live data from Hacker News

Starship Flight 7

spacex.com

271–280 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#271
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD. Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250..…

> donuts over the pacific Atlantic

Doh!

Re: Starship Flight 7

#272

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/

More views: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-S8CK6LgnD4 https://x.com/DavidCaroe/status/1880036195985682710

Even more:

https://x.com/jp_ouellette/status/1880029255813459973

https://x.com/Sitting_Analyst/status/1880033972748709995

https://x.com/nickpags45/status/1880028951885816056

Re: Starship Flight 7

#273
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention Only used once, when the Soviets dropped a nuclear reactor on Canada. > States (countries) bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it was launched from State A's territory, or from State A's facility, or if State A caused the launch to happe…

I feel like it should be updated. When it was written it wasn't like every Musk could launch high-orbit rockets on sundays. Only actual states did.

The convention does not prevent national law from providing private liability which may come into play between entities subject to the jurisdiction of the same state or between the state who is liable to other states under the convention and entities operating within the state. So, there is no need to update the convention; the states from which private launches operate simply need adequate domestic law to cover both fully-internal liability and private launcher liability for claims against the government under the convention. (And the US generally does, with the basic regulatory regime being adopted and the private space launch industry operating in the 1980s; it is not an issue that arose with Musk/SpaceX.)

Re: Starship Flight 7

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably self destructs if anything goes wrong

If it has control issues or similar absolutely, but does losing comms count as going wrong for the FTS? If the flight itself is on track?

Absolutely. All those contingencies are planned out and coded down in software.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#276
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a strangely beautiful sight. While I was excited to see ship land, I'm also happy I get to see videos of this!

I felt.. bad watching that breakup, it reminded me of Columbia.

Which coincidentally launched 22 years ago today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107

Re: Starship Flight 7

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

do we know when this video was taken? this could just be ship breaking up during re-entry because it lost altitude control. not necessarily the moment of the primary failure.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD. Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250..…

I don't have. Maybe they were indeed diverted because people got scared? Still seems pointless given the distances involved. Most reports are coming from social media / people watching flightradar24, and news media is just picking those up.

There are several, all at the same time, all in the same area, where the debreis was seen.

Why do you think it is pointless?

If I am a pilot and the tower says "debris seen heading east of Bahamas", I probably wont want to keep flying towards that direction.

Yeah, it is probably low risk, but I dont have a super computer or detailed map of the Starship debris field or entry zone.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the criticism exactly? Like I don't get your point? Yes they are behind on timelines and on Mars, does that mean that we should post reddit-tier cynical comments every time about that? I'm not saying that you're doing that, it's more that I don't get why this is surprising. And on the other hand, it's also funny to see how "skeptics" (whatever that means in this case) dismiss or belittle achievements that were…

[flagged]

SpaceX takes non-human payloads to low earth orbit every couple days. Over 100 in 2024.

They regularly take human payloads, too. They’re the only American launcher currently able to do so.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#280

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/

Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880060983734858130

Post reply on HN