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

341–350 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#341

Post by hinkley »

modeless wrote: post #318
ChuckMcM wrote: post #249

Will be interesting to hear the postmortem on the second stage. The booster part seemed to work pretty flawlessly with the exception of a non-firing engine on boost back which then did fire during the landing burn. If the person doing their on-screen graphics is reading this, I wonder if you have considered showing tank LOX/CH4 remaining as a log graph. I believe it decreases logrithmically when being used (well it w…

I don't believe they throttle the engines up or down much during the second stage burn. Fuel decreases ~linearly and thrust is relatively constant. Acceleration increases as fuel mass decreases.

Don’t they throttle back at MaxQ?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#342

Post by mrandish »

bigiain wrote: post #325
mrandish wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of SpaceX video clips that I know are "actual things really happening" which still activate the involuntary "Sci-Fi / CGI effect" neurons in my brain is remarkable.

Yeah. I know that feeling. That tower catch. That _had_ to be a new version of Kerbal, right? The physics looked good, but there's no way that was real...

Indeed. The one that still flips a bit in my brain is the two Falcon rockets landing in unison side by side. I'd say it was high-end CGI except no director would approve an effects shot of orbital rockets landing in such a perfect, cinematically choreographed way.

It would just be sent back to ILM marked "Good effort, but too obviously fake. Rework to be more realistic and resubmit."

Re: Starship Flight 7

#343

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #218
walrus01 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

The whole thing (booster et al) is around 1/3 as tall as the Eiffel tower... for context

Re: Starship Flight 7

#344

Post by IAmGraydon »

throw0101a wrote: post #324
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/

> (as seen from ground) As seen from a plane in the air with the break up right in front of it: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1i34dki/starship_...

That is absolutely insane. Honestly, I would probably assume a MIRV given the current environment.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#345

Post by [deleted] »

smusamashah wrote: post #328

View of previous catch (flight 5) from a very distant vantage point was even more incredible for me. You can see the scale of things right there https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1845444890764644694 https://youtu.be/Vzyaud250Xo https://youtu.be/ntmssdzp_qY Anyone has similar view of this landing? Edit: distant view of flight 7 by the same person https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1880044690428645684

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#346

Post by modeless »

hinkley wrote: post #341
modeless wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe they throttle the engines up or down much during the second stage burn. Fuel decreases ~linearly and thrust is relatively constant. Acceleration increases as fuel mass decreases.

Don’t they throttle back at MaxQ?

Yes, on the first stage.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#347

Post by mrandish »

throw0101a wrote: post #324
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/

> (as seen from ground) As seen from a plane in the air with the break up right in front of it: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1i34dki/starship_...

While the video post does mention "Right in front of us", and it may have appeared that way to the pilots, it wasn't. Gauging relative distance and altitude between aircraft in flight can be notoriously deceptive even to experts, especially in the case of intensely bright, massive, unfamiliar objects at very high speed and great distance.

The RUD was in orbit over 146 kilometers up and >13,000 mph. I'm sure using the FlightAware tracking data someone will work out the actual distance and altitude delta between that plane and the Starship 7 orbital debris. I suspect it was many dozens of miles away and probably still nearly orbital in altitude (~100km).

Spectacular light show though...

Re: Starship Flight 7

#348

Post by raincole »

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/

Does anyone know where the debris landed? In the ocean? Or just burnt out in the atmosphere?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#349

Post by TMWNN »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #85
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/

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

>What a strangely beautiful sight.

"My god, Bones, what have I done?"

Re: Starship Flight 7

#350

Post by TMWNN »

mrandish wrote: post #342
bigiain wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I know that feeling. That tower catch. That _had_ to be a new version of Kerbal, right? The physics looked good, but there's no way that was real...

Indeed. The one that still flips a bit in my brain is the two Falcon rockets landing in unison side by side. I'd say it was high-end CGI except no director would approve an effects shot of orbital rockets landing in such a perfect, cinematically choreographed way. It would just be sent back to ILM marked "Good effort, but too obviously fake. Rework to be more realistic and resubmit."

Seeing a rocket land vertically goes against almost 70 years of what we "know" about rockets. Falcon 9 rockets landing on legs seem unnatural enough; now we have a rocket, the size of a 20-story building, landing on chopsticks.

There are lots of vertical-landing rockets ... in science fiction, and only before Sputnik in 1957. Once actual space programs came about and lots of engineers understood just how difficult landing a rocket is compared to launching it, they all went away. Fictional vehicles became more and more complex to make them "realistic" (that is, consistent with real spacecraft on the news), or just didn't bother with the details at all and went to quasi-magic technologies like in Star Wars and Star Trek.

SpaceX is taking us to the future by going with something from the past.

Post reply on HN