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

61–70 of 326 posts

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#61

Post by SilverElfin »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #37
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.

There is a slight tilt normally, but I agree it was more than usual.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#62

Post by SilverElfin »

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…

Lots of engine failures. Doesn't exactly bode well for a company looking to go public immediately. One of the engine failures was not on the booster but Starship as you noted, and that is a bit unexpected. I don't think they have spoken about it being equal in capability with one engine out, right? Those engines don't move around to compensate IIRC.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#63

Post by shigawire »

simmonmt wrote: post #49
SJMG wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean ... step 1 is probably fixing the part where it lands in the ocean, falls over and explodes. Once they've done that and can get their hands on the tiles I'm guessing they can continue to iterate there until they get a more easily reusable design.

That part was intentional

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#64

Post by ericd »

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…

>Why are we on a another engine redesign?

Just looking at it should tell you a lot about why:

https://www.metal-am.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/08/...

It’s cheaper and faster to make in volume. It doesn’t require nearly as much shielding, because it’s less fragile, which saves a lot of weight. The engine itself is lighter. And on top of that, it develops more thrust, at higher fuel efficiency.

The net result is cheaper and lifts significantly more mass to space, which significantly drops the cost per kg to orbit.

It already worked, they’re making it much better, and getting it ready for a level of mass production that we’ve never seen anything close to in the space industry, even from SpaceX. They are much more ambitious than I think people who haven’t been watching them closely understand. The US grid is 1.4 TW of generation, they’re aiming to put up 1 TW of AI compute every year. Maybe they’ll stop well short of that, but their stated goal is insanely ambitious.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#65

Post by dylan604 »

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…

Did the landing burn light two engines as expected? It happened fast, but the graphic made it look like only one lit. If that’s true, that would be impressive as only lighting two was meant to be a test. At least according to the live stream hosts.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#66

Post by dylan604 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #62
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…

Lots of engine failures. Doesn't exactly bode well for a company looking to go public immediately. One of the engine failures was not on the booster but Starship as you noted, and that is a bit unexpected. I don't think they have spoken about it being equal in capability with one engine out, right? Those engines don't move around to compensate IIRC.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. The capabilities can overcome loss of engines. The fact it was successful with loss of engines shows it is working as designed.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#67

Post by WaitWaitWha »

I am just delighted that SpaceX continues with the "good enough" pace of development here, at least at these phases. Rapid iteration of build, test, learn, and improve rather than wait for perfection.

They are willing to have "negative outcome learning experiences" to gather data quickly. and, of course, data, data, data.

I like it because I know what insane amount of red tape has built up to do anything similar in a Gov (any Gov).

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#68

Post by EA »

SJMG wrote: post #39
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.

The tiles ablate. The shuttle returned from every mission with missing tiles.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#69

Post by dylan604 »

generuso wrote: post #11

The views from Ship's engine bay looked rather ominous -- with the red glow visible in multiple places, and something venting furiously from the broken engine. It was a pleasant surprise that the ship did not explode and not only that, but it even landed exactly on target. Guidance system software engineers have done a very good job! The booster not completing the return part of the flight was disappointing. They had…

Hopefully NASA ups their game for Artemis III
Post reply on HN