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

SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 326 posts

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#31

Post by ajross »

bbatha wrote: post #17
p-e-w wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all of those 12 launches happened in just 3 years, and cost a tiny fraction of other major spaceflight development programs. For reference, SLS has been in development for 5 times as long, and cost 15-20 times as much, as Starship, and they still haven’t landed people on the Moon, which has been one of the stated goals since the Constellation program in 2005. I don’t see how the number of failures matters if the…

Moreover the two lost shuttles included human lives. Better to blow stuff up with demo payloads now before sending up large contracted payloads or worse human beings!

> Better to [...]

That's undeniably true. Nonetheless "Better than the shuttle, which sucked" isn't the design goal.

The question is not even just "is it better to blow up 12 Starships?", which would probably still be true. It's "Why isn't Starship working yet?" and the implied "Maybe Starship sucks too?!".

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#33

Post by generuso »

xt00 wrote: post #22

The amount of data they must have at this point running so many of those raptor engines has got to be insane... at least 300+ engine launches now -- wow.

Five years ago SpaceX reported that they had 30000 seconds of test firing time on the Raptor, over 567 engine starts. Since them the program accelerated dramatically. Well over one thousand engines had been produced, and on an average day at McGregor test facility the Raptors are fired for about 600 seconds. That would give about a million seconds over five years. That's a lot for any engine development program.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#35

Post by redox99 »

ajross wrote: post #27
redox99 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford it, I'm sure anyone developing a rocket would prefer to do it this iterative way. I don't really understand the complain.

The point was more that there is a point where (to borrow the software terminology) "iterative design" becomes "death march". Trying a few times in the early days and being willing to throw stuff out and start over is a powerful tool. I think blowing up a handful of rockets is a fine idea. But at some point you have to ask yourself if it will ever work? Why are we on a another engine redesign? Why is this the third i…

v3 is the first version that was made with the intention of being used for actual payload delivery. The versions before were about testing and proof of concept.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#37

Post by stephc_int13 »

Laremere wrote: post #15

Summary from my watch: - Launch roughly on time, after a scrub yesterday. (Sounds like the scrub was due to ground equipment, most notably the water system.) - Initial ascent was good, but then one engine on the booster went out. - Relight of the booster's engines after stage separation for the boost back burn failed. Engines did light again for a landing burn, but seems to have hit the water harder than expected and…

The takeoff looked almost normal but I noticed a slight drift from vertical, likely because one of the engines was dead or dying. Overall the V3 is supposed to be an upgrade but actual progress is more or less stalling compared V2.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#38

Post by fsmv »

MBCook wrote: post #24

I don’t keep up with them. What’s different compared to v2?

Now the flaps don't melt! The tiles don't fall off!

It's a major overhaul of the design they've been working on for a long time. There was talk of v3 fixing the problems in early v2 test flights. The booster is v3 as well which presumably is why they had some problems. I believe this is also the first time they flew the v3 engines with the plumbing fully integrated in a single piece housing they 3D printed.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#39

Post by SJMG »

Laremere wrote: post #15

Summary from my watch: - Launch roughly on time, after a scrub yesterday. (Sounds like the scrub was due to ground equipment, most notably the water system.) - Initial ascent was good, but then one engine on the booster went out. - Relight of the booster's engines after stage separation for the boost back burn failed. Engines did light again for a landing burn, but seems to have hit the water harder than expected and…

I'm concerned about the cracking clearly visible on the heat shield tiles. It doesn't bode well for rapid reusability.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#40

Post by simondotau »

ajross wrote: post #27
redox99 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford it, I'm sure anyone developing a rocket would prefer to do it this iterative way. I don't really understand the complain.

The point was more that there is a point where (to borrow the software terminology) "iterative design" becomes "death march". Trying a few times in the early days and being willing to throw stuff out and start over is a powerful tool. I think blowing up a handful of rockets is a fine idea. But at some point you have to ask yourself if it will ever work? Why are we on a another engine redesign? Why is this the third i…

So what if they blow up literally 100 rockets, if they can eventually perfect it faster and more cheaply than the traditional approach, recently typified by SLS.

SpaceX have already proven that the iterative approach works with Falcon 9, literally the most successful rocket program ever. SpaceX have also proven that this specific Super Heavy/Starship rocket design isn’t a dead end. Criticising them for failing to succeed in the future is a valid but uninteresting opinion.

Post reply on HN