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

SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#151

Post by kolinko »

marricks wrote: post #124
nynx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a young person (21), I feel the same way. Space exploration and a beautiful future suddenly seems achievable with hard work and a lot of engineering instead of just feeling impossible.

I'd really think a bit more about it. We have so many problems here and none are solved by leaving. Climate change, wealth inequality, hungry, poor. None of the billionaires (Musk/Bezos) building rockets treat their workers terribly well now, and their end game will just be exploiting workers around the solar system. Coming as a past fan of space exploration is was pretty devastating to realize...

Did you read about how the whole space race (and the first photo of earth) inspired people to start the environmental movement in the first place?

Also, btw, my gf is a full time climate change activist and watched sn8’s start witb as much excitement as myself.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#152

Post by areoform »

valuearb wrote: post #126
areoform wrote: post #54

I make efforts to add to discussions instead of subtracting with negativity. Recently, I've broken my rule quite a few times, fretting over the future of general compute. I'd vowed to not break it again, but the discussion about Starship lacks a vital perspective. . I don't understand the hype behind Starship. It's confusing to me. It is touching and nice; it's great to see people excited about space. However, the ex…

Wow, for such an expert you sure get a lot of things wrong and wrapped up in minor issues if no consequence. 1. Project Morpheus was a mostly inconsequential project just retreading the same areas pioneered by the DC-X. 2. Other than propellant, it has nothing to do with Raptor, likely the most advanced rocket engine ever made. The Raptor is the first successful full flowed staged combustion engine ever. This test al…

I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm. I wish more people were as passionate about spaceflight as you.

Raptor shares the pintle-type injector, which was designed for the LEM and was part of the technology transfer to SpaceX as a part of their participation in the overarching COTS/CRS programs. The engine's design was partly funded by the USAF, and is a part of a rich history of alternate engine designs that all learn/share from one another.

SpaceX in general has leveraged NASA's rich history and high open-ness to integrate this history into their work, https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/hist...

Raptor is one of the few advanced engine concepts that have gone from the test stand to near-use, and that's an amazing achievement.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Raptor wasn't the first full flowed staged combustion engine. Being the first doesn't change what Raptor has done, taken several technologies from the test-stand phase to flight testing.

Autoland was de-emphasized due to demands for greater control by the astronaut corps. There was also the incident with STS-3. However, the Shuttle was designed from the ground up with GNC that was meant for full-scale autopilot, including landing. They were hoping for long-term space habitation and to send vehicles uncrewed and then return with crews from the Moon, Mars, and perhaps beyond. It was felt that the astronauts would be rusty and weak after continued microgravity exposure so autoland was emphasized during the design process. For its time, the STS had extremely advanced GNC and displayed mission capabilities that hadn't been displayed before. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19760024058

One of the RS-25 engines was used 22 times. This was engine SN-2012. Another was used 19 times, SN-2019. They were designed to be flown and re-flown 50+ times, each. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226730434_Reusabili...

BO has performed multiple suborbital flights using the same booster, and have taken scientific payloads for these flights.

Steel is heavier than Al and most other aerospace materials. It was chosen for Starship as a part of a novel Thermal Protection System, without that mission role, it is mass inefficient.

I am happy to hear your palpable excitement. I hope this comment helps you adjust your mental model to a better picture of the industry.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#154

Post by kolinko »

koobz wrote: post #128
zaroth wrote: post #88

I swear the thrust vectoring algorithm was just plain showing off at the very end. Just super cool to watch, looks like a render not real life; https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1336849897987796992?s=21

This is an incredible bit of footage. It's so cool to see the engines looking sideways like a chameleon. Raises a question: I suppose they fired 2/3 engines not because of a failure, but because 3 engines would produce too much thrust. That does mean that in a high stakes situation (landing) you can't afford to lose an engine. I wonder if there's any margin there for lighting the third engine in case of engine failur…

The final rocket is supposed to have 5 or 9 raptors if I’m not mistaken.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#155

Post by PeterisP »

Tepix wrote: post #146
garmaine wrote: post #94

Nitpick, 12km isn’t quite suborbital.

Where does suborbital begin? If i throw a ball, it's a suborbital flight.

The most common definition of suborbital flight would be a flight that reaches space (Karman line at 100 km) but does not reach orbit.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#156

Post by virgilp »

tristy wrote: post #119
aardvarkr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very male oriented statement to make. Somehow it’s sexist to applaud the fact that she’s a role model for women everywhere. It’s really hard to express how incredible for the chief executive at one of the most ambitious and innovative company of our time is a woman. I’ve met her personally and she is an incredibly inspirational person that I hope will inspire more women to become engineers.

She is not the chief executive; she reports to musk who is the CEO.

In this context, "chief executive" clearly means "C-level executive" which includes the COO.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#157

Post by simonh »

valuearb wrote: post #126
areoform wrote: post #54

I make efforts to add to discussions instead of subtracting with negativity. Recently, I've broken my rule quite a few times, fretting over the future of general compute. I'd vowed to not break it again, but the discussion about Starship lacks a vital perspective. . I don't understand the hype behind Starship. It's confusing to me. It is touching and nice; it's great to see people excited about space. However, the ex…

Wow, for such an expert you sure get a lot of things wrong and wrapped up in minor issues if no consequence. 1. Project Morpheus was a mostly inconsequential project just retreading the same areas pioneered by the DC-X. 2. Other than propellant, it has nothing to do with Raptor, likely the most advanced rocket engine ever made. The Raptor is the first successful full flowed staged combustion engine ever. This test al…

Great summary, but there’s also this fundamental misunderstanding of what this test was about:

> This isn't anywhere close to the finished vehicle and several key technological problems remain. Yet, they've explicitly shaped it like the final version...

One of the primary objectives of this test was to verify the aerodynamics of the vehicle. How could they test the aerodynamics if it was a different shape from the final version? Someone’s not paying attention, like at all.

Almost none of that screed was actually criticising specific aspects of the vehicle itself, it’s mostly discussion of irrelevant aspects of past vehicles as a smoke screen for actually not having much pertinent to say, and what is relevant is just plain wrong.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#158

Post by taejavu »

kolinko wrote: post #154
koobz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredible bit of footage. It's so cool to see the engines looking sideways like a chameleon. Raises a question: I suppose they fired 2/3 engines not because of a failure, but because 3 engines would produce too much thrust. That does mean that in a high stakes situation (landing) you can't afford to lose an engine. I wonder if there's any margin there for lighting the third engine in case of engine failur…

The final rocket is supposed to have 5 or 9 raptors if I’m not mistaken.

I think it’s more like 30

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#159

Post by grey-area »

nine_k wrote: post #149
Kliment wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it the landing legs didn't deploy because velocity was too high and angle was wrong. All this stuff gets reported by telemetry because they know exactly how likely it is that a first attempt flight will fail catastrophically (very). So these test rockets are heavily instrumented and networked. Watching it the first time I also thought one of the engines had failed but then that engine had a successful…

The video shows us the wreck site at the end. The rocket is mostly one piece though damaged by hitting the ground too fast and from a (relatively minor) explosion. It must be possible to find most pieces, and certainly check the engines, even deformed, for overburn signs.

Bright green flames at the end is a giveaway of engine-rich combustion.

Re: SpaceX launches and nearly lands starship on its first suborbital flight

#160

Post by simonh »

areoform wrote: post #152
valuearb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, for such an expert you sure get a lot of things wrong and wrapped up in minor issues if no consequence. 1. Project Morpheus was a mostly inconsequential project just retreading the same areas pioneered by the DC-X. 2. Other than propellant, it has nothing to do with Raptor, likely the most advanced rocket engine ever made. The Raptor is the first successful full flowed staged combustion engine ever. This test al…

I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm. I wish more people were as passionate about spaceflight as you. Raptor shares the pintle-type injector, which was designed for the LEM and was part of the technology transfer to SpaceX as a part of their participation in the overarching COTS/CRS programs. The engine's design was partly funded by the USAF, and is a part of a rich history of alternate engine designs that all le…

All of these points are well known and understood. Frankly, so what? Musk has been effusive in his praise of NASA’s help at SpaceX and many times has said he couldn’t have done any of it without their help. We know that. What actual point are you trying to make, other than list mainly irrelevant facts.

Yes some Musk fans ridicule NASA for past failures or lost opportunities and that’s a shame. It’s also widely understood in the community that this is mainly due to political interference and constraints forced on the organisation. But none of that has anything to do with your ‘criticisms’.

Take the points about steel. That matters on a non reusable system because you’re wasting weight for no mission relevant purpose, but if it allows you to reuse the vehicle rather than not, is it really still an inefficient choice? What point are you even trying to make? If that even is a criticism, it’s just not relevant. If you genuinely think it’s a bad choice, just say so and say why. But you don’t actually give any explanation of why any of these points matter.

Post reply on HN