SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#101

Post by rdtsc » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:52 AM UTC

SilverElfin wrote: post #83

dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it just means the mission happened to be salvageable because of its parameters. The booster is designed to have engines out and can compensate because it has so many engines and many of them are on gimbals. On starship, the vacuum engines aren’t on a gimbal. I’m not sure how it could compensate for one of three engines being out.

Some are on a gimbal and they specifically talked how others gimbaled out a bit to compensate. This is specifically something they designed in and not an accidental lucky save. In this flight they didn’t intend to test “one engine out” feature but it worked out that way.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#102

Post by pixl97 » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:53 AM UTC

maxlin wrote: post #23

I wonder if the hot separation was supposed to be that hot. Going at mach 5 and doing a quick U turn while there was some weird orange color on the side of the Super Heavy, then (possibly?) losing most engines from it seemed extra chaotic

They had a similar issue with the v2 booster the first time, flipped it so hard it damaged the downcomer and they had to change it up a bit. Seems likely here, that thing thats as big as a building flipped ends pretty quick and is partially filled with liquid.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#103

Post by SilverElfin » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:53 AM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #85

SilverElfin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it just means the mission happened to be salvageable because of its parameters. The booster is designed to have engines out and can compensate because it has so many engines and many of them are on gimbals. On starship, the vacuum engines aren’t on a gimbal. I’m not sure how it could compensate for one of three engines being out.

They explicitly said that they have engine out capability on the ship in the stream.

That’s for the booster (the big lower part) not for starship (the upper part that continues to space). They were surprised to have a vacuum engine out. In space there’s no atmosphere so you can’t use fins or wings to change direction. And if the engines can’t move around, you only have thrust and gravity and the tiny attitude adjusters to direct your ship.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#104

Post by idiotsecant » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:54 AM UTC

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.

Dang, a random HN user solving all the world's problems yet again, what would humanity do without you random HN guy?

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#105

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:55 AM UTC

lysace wrote: post #12

Cool splashdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiWX1nsvqBs&t=173s

So crazy that the NBC video didn’t include that! It’s still not as bad as NASA skipping the good view of the live separation.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#106

Post by amluto » Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:56 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #82

jordanb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shuttle's tiles not being durable as hoped is what killed it's turnaround time. The problem was never solved and turned what was supposed to be a few days into weeks or months. Every mission the shuttle had to go back into the assembly building and have all tiles inspected and potentially replaced.

Shuttle tiles were also unique per position and starship tiles have a few base forms that are interchangeable

I would also believe that a robot could inspect and replace tiles a lot faster than humans.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#107

Post by GMoromisato » Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:03 AM UTC

This was good forward progress (V3 mostly worked, clear improvements on heat-shield, near-final Starlink deployment system).

Is this enough progress to keep a 2028 crewed landing? Don't know.

I'm curious whether they are going to try to recover a Starship before trying for in-space refueling (or the reverse). Either way, I think both have to work before they can try for an uncrewed lunar landing (presumably in 2027).

The big question is re-usability. How close are they to relaunching a Starship? They may not know for sure until they can get one back intact. If they can launch at least once a month, maybe they'll make it.

If they can re-fly a Starship this year AND demonstrate in-space refueling, then 2027 can be all about an uncrewed landing attempt. That would make me feel good about a 2028 crewed landing on the moon.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#108

Post by XorNot » Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:07 AM UTC

mempko wrote: post #94

XorNot wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of finicky systems which go on to be good systems with a lot of work. Some things are just hard, a lot of the time you just don't see them being hard so publicly.

Sometimes a design is poor and needs a lot of modification and patches to kind of work.

That's software engineer "I'll simplify it!" logic and the score of it's successes is far too low for how common it is.

If a design with a bunch of modifications works, then it's a good design. Thinking you need to clean sheet redesign everything is how you get Second System Syndrome.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#109

Post by globalnode » Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:09 AM UTC

irjustin wrote: post #52

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 videos were incredible. My favorite part was watching the booster flip in such clarity. Normally we don't get full view of it, let alone 4k.

The videos are great!, but the rest of it is never going to work lol, just never. Even without a rethink about how to get heavy payloads to another planet this is still good entertainment.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#110

Post by SilverElfin » Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:10 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #101

SilverElfin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it just means the mission happened to be salvageable because of its parameters. The booster is designed to have engines out and can compensate because it has so many engines and many of them are on gimbals. On starship, the vacuum engines aren’t on a gimbal. I’m not sure how it could compensate for one of three engines being out.

Some are on a gimbal and they specifically talked how others gimbaled out a bit to compensate. This is specifically something they designed in and not an accidental lucky save. In this flight they didn’t intend to test “one engine out” feature but it worked out that way.

See my other comment. The vacuum engines are NOT on a gimbal. None of them. The sea level engines on starship and several of the engines on the booster are on a gimbal. But not the vacuum engines for space.

EDIT: I cannot reply further in this thread, but my understanding is that the non vacuum engines are not intended to stay lit throughout the orbital flight in a typical mission. If they are, they can gimbal and compensate.