Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 363 posts

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#51

Post by foobarian »

ge96 wrote: post #40
gcanyon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explosion was unexpected and (as far as I know at the moment) unexplained, but they flew the mission at the edge of the envelope, and with a variety of different materials/missing bits on purpose, to better understand where the edge is. Everything that happened (maybe even including the explosion, we'll see in the final analysis) was, as far as we know, within the plan. The biggest can't-miss milestone was the fl…

The deployment system was interesting, how the last one in the layer would go back then forward before releasing.

It looked like something one would cobble together from a garage opener and weld together a bunch of rebar

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#53

Post by ballenf »

stetrain wrote: post #21
Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

Yes, although it was stated before the flight that they were intentionally flying with some heat tiles removed and with a more aggressive profile to test some outer limits.

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas.

I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#54

Post by fhd2 »

ekianjo wrote: post #43
criddell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's a similar size to the Saturn V, but something about the Saturn V just seems grander to me. Maybe it's the paint job? Frankly, it kind of blows my mind what the US pulled off in the late 60's, early 70's with the technology and materials of the time.

They had virtually infinite budget at the time. SpaceX is much, much cheaper.

Is it though? I'm not knowledgeable on this at all, but it _seems_ like Space X is blowing up a lot more expensive equipment compared to NASA back in the space race days. Genuinely curious how it compares and how true my outsider impression is.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#55

Post by saubeidl »

enraged_camel wrote: post #20

Incredible achievement, but what is more incredible is how many people (including almost all of my friends circle) have started rooting for SpaceX to fail due to the shenanigans of its founder. I think as a culture we've lost the ability to compartmentalize. We should be able to criticize and even despise the head of a company, and at the same time celebrate when the intelligence and hard work of the countless smart…

Wernher von Braun had the incredible achievement of shooting the first rocket up to space - the V2.

Thanks to the intelligence and hard work of the countless smart and hard-working people he pushed the boundaries of what is possible for humanity.

Still, I find it hard to accept we should compartmentalize and not think about who those rockets were built for and with what purpose.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#56

Post by anonymars »

dylan604 wrote: post #38
fluoridation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those weren't on the Saturn V, though. They were various rockets for Mercury, and Titan II for Gemini.

Do you think they would/could have built the Saturn V without building the other engines first?

I think as phrased this is going to get way too pedantic. But I think it raises a larger point which is worthy to consider.

Presumably what we're trying to get at is, in broad strokes, "is Starship more cost-effective to develop than Saturn V" (and I assume the follow-on for that will be to compare the "NASA approach" vs the "SpaceX approach")

But you raise a good point in that the baseline playing field is completely different. The existing knowledge each program started with, be it in materials science, understanding of rocket combustion, heat shield technology, electronics, simulation ability, you name it, it's completely different. So we can find and pull out whatever numbers, but I don't think it's possible for them to say anything meaningful for comparison on their own.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#57

Post by kilroy123 »

seatac76 wrote: post #13

Amazing achievement. Just watching no that giant thing lift off is a great feeling.

It's pretty remarkable progress. Slowly but surely, they're getting it done. I predict they'll have a full working version by 2027. By 2028, they'll have regular reusable flights.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#58

Post by baq »

nomilk wrote: post #19

Given the results of test 10 (successful splash down of Starship), any ideas what test 11 will entail? Could we be looking at a chopstick catch of the Starship itself?

The money is in Starlink, so maybe they'll want to make orbit having demonstrated successful relights and payload door operation?

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#59

Post by NitpickLawyer »

foobarian wrote: post #51
ge96 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deployment system was interesting, how the last one in the layer would go back then forward before releasing.

It looked like something one would cobble together from a garage opener and weld together a bunch of rebar

You should have seen the first tech demonstrator for the Raptor engine (the family that powers Starship). It was basically a water tower (built out in the desert, welded by people specialising in building water towers). But it flew, and it landed, and then it served as a lights & camera mount for the field for a few years.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#60

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

fluoridation wrote: post #47
stetrain wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS/Orion. Yes the mission profile is more complex, but that complexity can mostly be settled before the astronauts launch on their mission. NASA seems to think it is a viable plan whic…

Wikipedia: > After a multi-phase design effort, on April 16, 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to develop Starship HLS and deliver it to near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) prior to arrival of the crew for use on the Artemis III mission. The delivery requires that Starship HLS be refueled in Earth orbit before boosting to the NRHO, and this refueling requires a pre-positioned propellant depot in Earth orbit that is filled by…

> Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up?

If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely.

They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yesterday.

Post reply on HN