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

SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#71

Post by keenerd »

applecore wrote: post #52
Tomte wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess, military personnel (that astronauts so far have basically been) are less skittish in that regard than civilians. Especially since it is understood that space travel is dangerous, while air travel is regarded as safe.

According to Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 only had a "50–50 chance" of landing safely on the Moon's surface. They're willing to take enormous risks.

That might be out of context. There were a whole lot of points where the mission could have been safely aborted had any parameter been unacceptable. Look at Apollo 10, which was identical to 11 except for turning around when the lander was a few km above the surface. Failure to land does not mean a risk to safely. The risk wasn't survival, it was failing to complete the primary mission objective.

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#73

Post by ash »

51Cards wrote: post #58
wfunction wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any actual HD video? I find it really surprising I can't find any...

SpaceX will be in possession of some... Probably just not ready to release it yet.

I don't think they will release anything. Have they ever released any videos of their early failures?

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#74

Post by anoopmunshi »

demallien wrote: post #20
kome wrote: post #5

The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time. But concretely, what's the point…

You uh, do realize that this was a test-bed rocket right? Designed to do experimental things? Also, I was not aware of any Falcon 9 exploding previously. What on earth are you talking about?

Even I agree this might just be a experimental? for which they might not have permission for. or may be i am speculating

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#75

Post by dclowd9901 »

robert_tweed wrote: post #47
speeq wrote: post #22

"We've got to tunnel one of these vehicles into the ground by trying something really hard." - Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX

This puts "move fast and break things" into a whole new perspective. I'm glad I can joke about this because nobody was hurt. Saw the headline at the top of the frontage and it immediately brought back memories of seeing Challenger on the news when I was 9, which rather changed my perspective on space travel at the time.

Indeed, but when I move fast and break things, my website goes down, and maybe costs a few thousand in lost sales. In terms of man hours and construction, this broken thing must cost tens of millions! That's some agile.

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#76

Post by Shivetya »

mikeash wrote: post #62
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely love that video - it's pretty much Kerbal Space Program in real life!

I agree. I'm glad nobody got hurt, so I can enjoy it without guilt. My favorite part is at the end when the sound from the explosion arrives. Everything is calm, then suddenly KABOOM! Really drives home how far away the thing is (because it takes so long for the sound to arrive) and how big it is (because it's still a massive KABOOM even at that distance).

the KABOOM is impressive, shock wave at that distance is more telling

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#77

Post by chmullig »

isaacV wrote: post #69

I also almost got a job there, and toured that facility during the final interview. Their testing at that site involves firing rockets that are secured to the ground, and monitoring the results from an underground bunker. I lived in that area up until this year, and I've never seen them launch anything from that site. I didn't even know they had that infrastructure there! There are also houses all around that facilit…

They've done lots of launches of the Grasshopper and F9R landing tests there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#78

Post by washedup »

electromagnetic wrote: post #17
AVTizzle wrote: post #12

>>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was triggered after an unexplained malfunction. It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?

Honestly, play KSP. Once you flip a rocket, its nearly unrecoverable and it just accelerates into the ground.

Not only that, but it accelerates at a higher rate because the thrust vector and gravitational pull are pointing in the same direction.

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#79

Post by rasz_pl »

AVTizzle wrote: post #12

>>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was triggered after an unexplained malfunction. It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?

Alien on board comes to mind.

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#80

Post by applecore »

keenerd wrote: post #71
applecore wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 only had a "50–50 chance" of landing safely on the Moon's surface. They're willing to take enormous risks.

That might be out of context. There were a whole lot of points where the mission could have been safely aborted had any parameter been unacceptable. Look at Apollo 10, which was identical to 11 except for turning around when the lander was a few km above the surface. Failure to land does not mean a risk to safely. The risk wasn't survival, it was failing to complete the primary mission objective.

You might be right. Apparently, he thought they had a 90% chance of getting back safely to Earth.
Post reply on HN