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

661–670 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#661

Post by panick21_ »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #551
hooli_gan wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Mars cargo mission, according to the timeline spacex set for themselves. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F2HFqsVkiZc/YT9bPpXSKDI/AAAAAAAAG...

A lot of people have been shitting on SLS for being too expensive over the last 5 years, but it's worth noting that the Artemis program has been completely fucked due to SpaceX massively missing its milestones on Starship. So many people believe that Elon Musk is going to bring humanity back to the Moon, but he is largely the reason that humanity is not back on the moon already. The GAO put out a report on this a few…

Complete nonsense. There are many issues with Artemis timeline.

And of course its completely ridiculous to blame a program that received 2 billion $ and only really started a few years ago, vs things like SLS Orion that have been going for decades and absorbed 50 billion $.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#662

Post by fooker »

tsimionescu wrote: post #478
cruffle_duffle wrote: post #253

Every one of these are like right out of a sci-fi novel. It makes me truly excited for our future in a way little else out there does. Between this, AI (even in its current LLM form), and mounting evidence suggesting the entire solar system is teeming with at least microbial life, we are going to become an interplanetary species far sooner than many “skeptics” imagine. We are just one more lander / sample mission / w…

> Your kids will be traveling to space I can 100% guarantee to you that the children of anyone born today will not travel to space in any significant number. There is nothing in space to travel to until we build extremely complex habitats, and that can't be done with manual human labor, it requires mostly automatic drones and maybe a handful of human controllers living in the ship that brought them there. And buildin…

> I can 100% guarantee to you that the children of anyone born today will not travel to space in any significant number

Someone born today will have children living into the early 2100s. The first flight ever was a little more than a hundred years ago. Using your kind of logic, no one would have predicted most of the technology we take for granted today.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#663

Post by ceejayoz »

me_me_me wrote: post #658
ceejayoz wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But also NASA landed two SUVs on mars first try, using skycrane, Full remote. they developed and built mars helicopter/drone (rip). First try. But spaceX gets the glory because... break things?? NASA lost a good number of probes in the process of getting the expertise to do that. And likely quite a few test devices in building out the skycrane.

citation needed You cant be making shit up and equating a test to blowing up 7 rockets

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

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

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

Re: Starship Flight 7

#664

Post by anentropic »

dpifke wrote: post #280
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/

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

I wonder if it's related to the loose panel flapping about at the left of the screen here: https://youtu.be/qzWMEegqbLs?si=aUlI6zfkH3bZCmVm&t=111

Re: Starship Flight 7

#665

Post by jjk166 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #143
mh- wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1880032865209184354 >Commercial flights are turning around to avoid potential debris.

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…

> at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down.

Without air resistance, falling 145 km takes 172 seconds, which would result in the debris falling 956 km east of the explosion point if it were moving horizontal to the ground to begin with. With air resistance, it is substantially shorter as everything is decelerating proportional to the velocity cubed. If we approximate the terminal velocity of the debris as 500 km/h, to a first order approximation it would travel approximately 79 km east. The distance from West Caicos island to Grand Turk island is 138 km, for reference.

Satellites are moving much faster and at much higher altitude. Starship was not in orbit.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#666

Post by dotancohen »

pyrale wrote: post #608
dotancohen wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that was all the experimental program did. No humans on board, no payloads, no orbit, not even suborbital as they stayed close to the ground. The Falcon 9 puts humans into orbit then turns around and lands not far from the launch tower. It's then brought in for maintenance and a few weeks later launching again - some of them have done 20 flights.

You’re comparing an experimental program that lasted 6 years with a company founded 22 years ago. How many payload flights did space-x do 6 years into its existence?

No, you made that comparison two posts up. I just replied to you ))

Re: Starship Flight 7

#667

Post by 1970-01-01 »

EncomLab wrote: post #447

First Shuttle orbited astronauts and successfully recovered all intended components. Every Saturn 5 was successful, the 3rd flight sent a crew to lunar orbit, and the 6th put a crew on the moon. To date a Starship has yet to be recovered after flight - and those launched are effectively boilerplate as they have carried no cargo (other than a banana) and have none of the systems in place to support a crew. Some people…

Apollo 6 (2nd Satun V launch) was "less than nominal" and warranted a congressional hearing. It did succeed, but luck played a part. George Mueller declared later that Apollo 6 was a failure for NASA.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080120112115/http://www.hq.nas...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080227133401/http://www.hq.nas...

Re: Starship Flight 7

#668

Post by geetee »

EncomLab wrote: post #447

First Shuttle orbited astronauts and successfully recovered all intended components. Every Saturn 5 was successful, the 3rd flight sent a crew to lunar orbit, and the 6th put a crew on the moon. To date a Starship has yet to be recovered after flight - and those launched are effectively boilerplate as they have carried no cargo (other than a banana) and have none of the systems in place to support a crew. Some people…

Musk derangement syndrome

Re: Starship Flight 7

#669

Post by vardump »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #637
Workaccount2 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The savings Spacex has promise of delivering to NASA make every dollar given to them probably an easy 2x-3x ROI. Without Spacex, the typical cohort of gov contractors would have been happy bleeding NASA dry with one time use rockets that have 10x the launch cost and carry 1/4 the cargo.

Sorry, Artemis carried more than one banana and actually made it to orbit. SpaceX has not provided any ROI yet. You can't compare the (very optimistic) promises of SpaceX against the actual returns of the rest of the industry.

Zero ROI?

Isn’t SpaceX the largest launch provider in the world and for the U.S. government?

Many times than the rest of the U.S. space industry combined.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#670

Post by tcmart14 »

krick wrote: post #267
ceejayoz wrote: post #224

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.

No expert, but I would assume, the USA would front it, but then take a case against SpaceX. So it would be Boat Owner v. USA, then USA v. SpaceX shortly after. Although I could be totally wrong.

But yea, seems appropriate to update it or if that is going to be the process, write it in stone.

Post reply on HN