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

SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 193 posts

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#101

Post by parsimo2010 »

gavinray wrote: post #89
johnyzee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.

I don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?

It’s literal rocket science. Liquid fueled rockets have to work in basically the most extreme environments we’ve ever made machines work. Extreme cold temperatures through extreme hot and from extreme high pressures through vacuum. You have to have the best metallurgy and amazing machining tolerances. And then on starship they got it to work more than thirty times simultaneously.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#102

Post by hinkley »

gavinray wrote: post #89
johnyzee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.

I don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?

People genuinely don’t understand how statistics work. Which is part of why Vegas still makes so much money.

When you put together a bunch of equipment with a small error rate, the time between errors climbs very fast. Build a RAID array with 33 disks and you’d better have a vendor picked out for replacements because you’ll be doing replacements fairly often, instead of every four to ten years with a single disk.

And they don’t understand dependent statistics either. Every failing rocket engine can potentially damage its neighbors. Every failing hard drive requires a stressful operation on the remaining disks (resilvering) that may push the next drive to failure.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#104

Post by datameta »

euroderf wrote: post #81
datameta wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the conclusion of the SpaceX stream they confirmed the automated launch abort system triggered with vehicle lost. But so much data gained!

I hope that future mission commanders will never ever let control forget that someone mistakenly kaboomed an upper stage.

I believe it was automatic based on a potential course deviation that brought it dangerously close to Hawaii?

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#105

Post by aik »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #69
gregjor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that’s one way to define success or a milestone. The Saturn V used for the Apollo program had different criteria, like not blowing up and having all engines ignite. Now that we have the person who knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive in charge I’m sure these glitches will get sorted out.

It’s nice when you have the backing of a super power nation and their blank check to do it vs having shareholders.

Amazing the effect competency has when trying to win a blank check away from others.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#106

Post by deadbeeves »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #69
gregjor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that’s one way to define success or a milestone. The Saturn V used for the Apollo program had different criteria, like not blowing up and having all engines ignite. Now that we have the person who knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive in charge I’m sure these glitches will get sorted out.

It’s nice when you have the backing of a super power nation and their blank check to do it vs having shareholders.

Doesn't SpaceX receive plenty of money from the US?

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#107

Post by spurgu »

deadbeeves wrote: post #106
godzillabrennus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s nice when you have the backing of a super power nation and their blank check to do it vs having shareholders.

Doesn't SpaceX receive plenty of money from the US?

They get money for launching stuff into space, i.e. it's a business.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#108

Post by dylan604 »

nilamo wrote: post #95
dylan604 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quite the opposite. i'm tired of the concept "there are no losers" and everyone deserves a reward. life is harsh, and teaching that at younger ages is better than soft selling the concept of losing so that it's a harsh slap in the face later in life.

Right but the comment you replied to is just pointing out that there can be multiple winners. Coke and Pepsi both are winning, though your comments sound like you think one is a loser for not being top sales in beverage.

If you ask the reps from Coke/Pepsi if they are losing to the other that has top sales, they will tell you "yes". If you ask someone dealing broadcast TV ratings if they are losing because they are the 2nd rated show, they'd also say yes.

I'm not really sure your point. Just because the 2nd placed entity is earning lots of cash means that they are winning? They may be successfully operating their business, but if someone is earning more then they are not winning. I'm really not sure of your definition of winning. Maybe you're using the Charlie Sheen version of winning?

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#109

Post by saberience »

gavinray wrote: post #89
johnyzee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.

I don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?

I'm going to assume you made this comment in good faith.

Most rockets (almost all) use just a few engines. The Saturn V had five engines, and the Space Shuttle had a total of five engines (including the Solid Rocket Boosters). The Atlas V uses one engine, New Glenn seven engines, etc.

Historically, there has only been one rocket that attempted the 'many engine' approach before now: the N1 by the Soviets, which they never managed to get working successfully.

SpaceX is thus attempting something unprecedented. They are not only trying to create a rocket with 33 engines, but they are also building the most powerful rocket ever made. Furthermore, it is the only rocket ever designed with fully reusable first and second stages. In this single machine, SpaceX is innovating in multiple ways that neither the US, the Soviets, nor any other country has managed to achieve.

Additionally, the Raptor engine used by SpaceX is the only full-flow staged combustion rocket engine that has ever flown. This design makes it more efficient and high-performing and has been considered the 'holy grail' of rocket engine design. Until now, no one has managed to build a successful rocket engine using full-flow staged combustion due to its complexity. The Raptor is also, pound for pound, the most powerful and efficient rocket engine ever made.

SpaceX is innovating throughout their space 'stack.' The entirety of the Starship project is immensely innovative in almost every way possible. Many others have tried and failed to achieve even a single aspect of what this project encompasses. The fact that SpaceX managed to have 33 Raptors firing perfectly today is already absolutely phenomenal.

So yes, I expect things to fail because much of what they are doing is literally the first attempt of its kind. It's entirely predictable that some aspects might fail. What you're asking is akin to questioning the pioneers of quantum computing: 'Hey, are you telling me the first quantum chip you built failed? That’s crazy! How can you build something so expensive and expect it to fail?'

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#110

Post by gavinray »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #101
gavinray wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?

It’s literal rocket science. Liquid fueled rockets have to work in basically the most extreme environments we’ve ever made machines work. Extreme cold temperatures through extreme hot and from extreme high pressures through vacuum. You have to have the best metallurgy and amazing machining tolerances. And then on starship they got it to work more than thirty times simultaneously.

Sure, but if one works, why wouldn't the rest?

It's like saying "we built a car engine, but every 33rd car we make the engine doesn't" work. That's not a very good engine.

Also, not sure why I am getting downvoted for saying I don't understand something and asking other people how it works.

Post reply on HN