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

431–440 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#431

Post by rob74 »

14 wrote: post #371
coldtea wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Even NASA years into their existence has suffered catastrophic fatal failures. Even with the best and most knowledgeable experts working on it we are ultimately still in the infancy of space flight. Just like airlines every incident we try and understand the cause and prevent it from happening again. Lastly what they are doing is incredibly difficult with probably thousands of things that could go wrong. I think they…

I you are referring to the two Space Shuttle accidents, both of them could have been avoided with just a little bit more care - not launching in freezing temperatures for Challenger, and making sure insulation foam doesn't fall off the tank for Columbia.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#432

Post by raverbashing »

m4rtink wrote: post #422
raverbashing wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there's fire suppression effective enough for this type of leak (especially given rocket constraints)

Actually the Super Heavy (first stage) already uses heavy CO2 based fire suppression. Hopefully not that necessary in the long term, but should make it possible to get on with the testing in the short term.

That's interesting

However if you see the stream you can see one of the tanks rapidly emptied before loss of signal

It seems this was not survivable regardless of fire or not

Re: Starship Flight 7

#433

Post by Cthulhu_ »

sneak wrote: post #116
yreg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have perfectly described the feeling I had regarding the first belly flop demo (at least I think it was the first one?) https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8?si=wY7TQsbR_wxoud75&t=70 (ten seconds from the timestamp)

Yeah, that shot is so clean and smooth it feels like a render. Absolutely iconic even after a dozen rewatchings. The iris flares and the framerate… gotta hand it to whoever planned that shot and placed that camera. A+ videography.

As another commenter pointed out, it's down to better cameras; higher resolution and framerates than "traditional" cameras used in this kind of recording. But it could be better still, the camera setup in the clip still gets a lot of shaking from the blasts.

IIRC they use regular off the shelf gopro cameras to mount on the ones going into space. Granted, the mount is ruggedized metal else the cameras wouldn't survive, lol [0].

I'm also reminded of NASA's cameras which were mounted on the mechanisms of an anti-air gun, great for slow and precise movements. I'm sure they still use that today but I couldn't find a good source. I did find an article about NASA's ruggedized cameras for use on spacecraft and the like though [1].

[0] https://www.quora.com/Was-the-GoPro-camera-modified-for-the-... [1] https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Redefining_the_Rugged_Video_Camera

Re: Starship Flight 7

#434

Post by InDubioProRubio »

ceejayoz wrote: post #240
ricardobeat wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 21000km/h when it broke up, compared to ~28k for stuff orbiting in LEO. Should still go quite far.

Yes, although drag is gonna be… substantially higher like this as well.

Does melting down not reshape metallic particles into ideal droplett parts ?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#435

Post by numba888 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #201
numba888 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Booster works, we've seen that before. No satellites deployment, no new heat shield test. Separation works. But that's it. Now the 'funniest' thing, this piece falls back where the ships are waiting. I hope it will miss this time too.

The ships are on the other side of the planet, near Australia. They’ll be fine.

Didn't expect it to disintegrate completely. At least they figured out what happened. Well, one step at a time. But that means no orbital flight for next couple of missions.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#436

Post by dbspin »

floating-io wrote: post #408
figassis wrote: post #393

What worries me about space innovation is the fact that there is such little margin for error. Materials are being stressed so much while trying to defy the laws of physics that the smallest angle error, the smallest pressure mismatch, smallest timing error, and boom. This did not happen when we were inventing cars, trains and air planes. Now imagine these risks, while you're halfway to mars. Is it possible that we j…

What makes you think this didn't happen in other industries? See the first iteration of the de Havilland Comet for a great example. The Space Industry to date has killed many fewer people than planes, trains, or automobiles.

> The Space Industry to date has killed many fewer people than planes, trains, or automobiles.

Except as a proportion of passengers. In which case it's killed several of orders of magnitude more.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#438

Post by tjpnz »

raincole wrote: post #348
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?

Wasn't going fast enough to fully burn up. There'll be small pieces of debris scattered over quite a large area.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#439

Post by [deleted] »

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/

[deleted]

Re: Starship Flight 7

#440

Post by notorandit »

pmontra wrote: post #409
coldtea wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Test flights. My tests keep failing until I fix all of my code, then we deploy to production. If code fails in production than that's a problem. We could say that rockets are not code. A test run of a Spaceship surely cost much more than a test run of any software on my laptop but tests are still tests. They are very likely to fail and there are things to learn from their failures.

Running a code test doesn't require firing a rocket.

How would you test a rocket?

Post reply on HN