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

Starship's Tenth Flight Test

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#111

Post by MPSimmons »

gibolt wrote: post #101
apical_dendrite wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Consider what would have happened if Elon wasn't there. Likely the same. The people wanting those things cut are still present. I wish he hadn't gone along with them, but there likely had to be concessions before attempting to make progress. When it became clear cost savings and efficiency wasn't the actual goal in the White House, Elon left.

Just because _someone_ is going to do something evil doesn't mean it has to be _you_. Every person has a choice, and he chose to do evil.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#112

Post by bryanlarsen »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #84
bagels wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little more longevity and one more engine restart, unless the suborbital is very suborbital, then it also means a lot more delta v. It doesn't seem that far away at all.

What's surprising is that people are still resorting to this silly complaint about not reaching orbit when there's a perfectly sensible complain they could be making instead: that SpaceX hasn't yet demonstrated that they can reach orbit and return safely. The safe return is important because I would expect a failure to return safely to be a big deal: it's not like this thing is going to completely burn up if they don…

Starship returned safely. Safe return of orbital generally means a splashdown within 1500 miles of Point Nemo. They just demonstrated that they can splash down within meters of their target buoy. Even if the flaps failed completely they still would have been far less than 1500 miles off target.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#113

Post by m4rtink »

gibolt wrote: post #88
mikewarot wrote: post #45

I'm amazed the thing landed right next to the Buoy, and was seen from the BuoyCam.

This has happened many times so far. Control to reach a specific landing point is quite good (when things don't go boom first)

This is definotely on purpose & quite important for the upcomming starship catching for rapid reusability. :)

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#114

Post by jiggawatts »

chasd00 wrote: post #42

Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.

A composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) seems to have exploded on the upper stage during reentry. It did significant damage to the rear flap and it made some dents in the engines too.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#115

Post by johnny22 »

gibolt wrote: post #101
apical_dendrite wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Consider what would have happened if Elon wasn't there. Likely the same. The people wanting those things cut are still present. I wish he hadn't gone along with them, but there likely had to be concessions before attempting to make progress. When it became clear cost savings and efficiency wasn't the actual goal in the White House, Elon left.

Yes, and then we'd blame those people instead. He chose to do do that himself.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#116

Post by dotnet00 »

themafia wrote: post #99
dotnet00 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intention is to need minimal to no replacement between flights. Part of the purpose of these tests is to figure out how to do that. The tiles themselves work fine, but how to best mount them? where do you need them? Can you make them thinner? do you need anything underneath? what kind of gap do you need between tiles? Those are the things they're hoping to understand in these tests. The Shuttle tiles were technic…

> every flight needed to have a perfect heat shield. Which is a little easier to do when your craft is shaped like a plane and not a simple cylinder. The loading and positioning were easier to model and then achieve in flight. The shuttle also flew with repair kits and glue that could be used in a vacuum. The astronauts could perform an EVA and work to replace damaged tiles and there were published plans on how to do…

I thought that while the spare tiles did exist, there was never an actual safe procedure for replacing tiles (that didn't require being docked to the ISS) they were only carried to be available when the choice was between losing the entire crew on reentry or risking a crew member?

I don't quite understand how the airplane shape made it easier to model the loading and positioning? (Not saying you're wrong, just doesn't fit my intuition and I'm curious).

My understanding is that Shuttle didn't have to answer the questions about tile gaps etc because it used glue rather than mechanical attachments, if that's what you mean by positioning.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#117

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

gibolt wrote: post #86
apical_dendrite wrote: post #81

[flagged]

Pretty sure the DOGE intent was good, but real efforts were mostly sidelined for the Trump pony show. Thus the 'fighting' words that followed when the BBB tax cut showed up.

DOGE never tried to do good work. It was a hit and run job to satisfy Musk's ego and get rid of stuff he personally doesn't like. It didn't save much money and didn't create any efficiency.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#118

Post by mythrwy »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #108
gibolt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what would have happened if Elon wasn't there. Likely the same. The people wanting those things cut are still present. I wish he hadn't gone along with them, but there likely had to be concessions before attempting to make progress. When it became clear cost savings and efficiency wasn't the actual goal in the White House, Elon left.

[flagged]

Any chance you could help keep this site political flamewar free?

Not everyone agrees with you politically and it's unpleasant to have to wade through these kind of rants to read about interesting things.

You have strong feelings, I get it, but please stop the pollution. I am trying my best to say this in a kind and sincere way. There are plenty of other places to make political rants.

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#119

Post by oska »

kersplody wrote: post #61
chasd00 wrote: post #42

Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.

Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.

What's the need for tile waterproofing ?

Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test

#120

Post by BurningFrog »

rlt wrote: post #69
kersplody wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.

They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry. But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time. TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.

The ship and booster both sank in the ocean as planned, so there is no inspecting and repairing phase.

I think that work can be done quite well based on all the footage and other collected metrics.

Post reply on HN