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

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 560 posts

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#161

Post by ars »

gist wrote: post #158
ars wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was downvoted for only looking at first-order effects: People harmed during the fire. And ignoring second-order effects: People harmed because of the results of the fire. The second group of people is not less important than the first.

Why is it necessary to feel sad and to even consider all of that? That is my point. What bothers you bothers you and what doesn't is fine, less to think about. You can't go around being bothered by everything 'bad' that happens in the world to someone else. I don't think that is healthy in any way. By "bothered" I don't mean indicating in words that something is sad. I mean actual concern as if it impacts you or some…

If you don't feel sad about something, then don't.

But you don't have to go around saying "LaLaLa I don't feel sad." Just don't say anything.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#162

Post by antisthenes »

skadamat wrote: post #146
joering2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove any of this? Knowing how smart and methodological Musk is, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule at the office is actually to leave your desk and go home at 5pm sharp. You are prone to make more mistakes when you tired and overworked and I cannot imagine more important place not to make mistakes, than building a rocket.

It's pretty well documented that people at SpaceX work 80+ hours a week consistently: https://www.quora.com/How-many-hours-a-week-does-a-typical-S... http://spacenews.com/op-ed-3-things-to-know-if-you-want-to-w... https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/25ixxq/is_spacex_wo...

Wouldn't be surprised if some overworked engineer made a mistake.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#163

Post by sbierwagen »

sangnoir wrote: post #95
Symmetry wrote: post #62

The payload was apparently on the rocket at the time[1]. A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. [1] https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...

> A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a '100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)

A Delta II blew up 13 seconds after launch in 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_IIR-1

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#164

Post by noobermin »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #137
tomjen3 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.

I think it's unfair that you are getting downvotes for this statement. All you said was that it is good to have some perspective. Yes, it sucks to lose the rocket and the satellite. But to put it into perspective, the husband of the lady sitting next to me as I type this (and a friend of mine) is currently sitting in the shelter at the launchpad. He texted her to let her know he was alive. He can't give out any more…

I agree. You could argue it could always be worse (2 deaths vs 1, a death of a loved one vs. a stranger) but I'm sure the level of badness has a steep curve before human loss is considered.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#165

Post by antisthenes »

jlebrech wrote: post #150
corv wrote: post #27

"This rocket was scheduled to launch the Amos-6 communication satellite, which among other functions included the capabilities for Facebook to spot-beam broadband for Facebook’s Internet.org initiative" Bad karma

a facebook satelite doesn't sound too good anyways.

Well, right now it is more of a faceplant satellite.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#166

Post by dogma1138 »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #154
artursapek wrote: post #51

Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...

This disaster may have bigger implications for Spacecom. They were in the middle of being acquired by Beijing Xinwei and the successful launch of Amos 6 was supposed to be a factor in closing the deal[1]. I have no idea what blowing up on the pad means for the merger. 1. http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...

It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017.

There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage theories.

But yeah it's not great for spacecom in general, Facebook also will now withdraw from their contract with them for supplying internet to Africa as AMOS-6 was supposed to replace AMOS-2 and enhance the coverage over Africa and the Middle East. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-K... Israel is one of the few countries that is pushing satellite coverage in the area, AMOS-6 was supposed to grant up to 20gbps of bandwidth to Africa over the leased Ka band which was desperately needed.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#168

Post by dalke »

twic wrote: post #141
Gracana wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion reminds me of the failure of the first Ariane 5 launch. The flight-termination system was activate erroneously, and the payload was not insured. Ouch. http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet87/cavall87.htm https://around.com/ariane.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_%28spacecraft%29

That's not what happened - the rocket went out of control due to a software bug allowed by over-reliance on unit testing, and was quite properly deliberately destroyed. But yes, Cluster was run on the cheap, hence the use of the Ariane 5 test flight, and didn't have insurance.

"Over-reliance on unit testing"? I have a somewhat different read from the inquiry board report, which says it was a "systematic software design error." Yes, inadequate testing, and a belief the working code for Ariane 4 meant it was validated for Ariane 5 were certainly contributory, but I think it's unfair to single out an over-reliance on unit testing.

The board argues that there was a bias towards believing the software does not have an error. Thus, any out-of-range value is interpreted as a hardware error, which means the CPU should shut down.

There was a decision to not include Ariane 5 trajectory data in the SRI requirements and specification. Thus, while tests were rigorous at the equipment ("unit") level, and there were system tests, they didn't test that case. This is test design failure.

In addition, the board says "the review process was a contributory factor in the failure."

I can see how those can be aspects of "over-reliance on unit testing", but it doesn't explain, for example, how some of the variables from Ariane 4 were protected from overflow exceptions but others were not.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#169

Post by dogma1138 »

dalke wrote: post #143
cstross wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 (China, CZ-3B, Intelsat 708 payload, the launcher flew off-course and crashed on a village in 1996: by some estimates 200-500 civilians were killed.)

That links to http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1 where one of the comments is: > Like Russian vehicles, there is no flight termination system that receives ground commands onboard Chinese launch vehicles. Only US and ESA launch sites have such a system. Correction, Falcon 1 did not have such a system for launching on Kwaj.

That's because usually the US and ESA/France launch from densely populated areas.

The launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center/CC is effectively about 50 mile from downtown Orlando, Baikonur is in the middle of nowhere.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#170

Post by JohnStrange »

300bps wrote: post #105
db48x wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money didn't disappear, it paid the people working on the project all the way down to the miners who dug up the minerals and the fast-food workers who made the cheeseburger that engineer bought that one time. It did fail to earn a return, however.

You're advocating the Broken Window Fallacy. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

I'm kind of skeptical about this alleged fallacy, where I have to admit that I'm not an economist. The usual formulations of it seem to be something crucial missing.

I've heard that many producers of goods deliberately introduce failure points, e.g. in electronics by using cheap solder or capacitors with a limited lifetime. Buttons also fail way too easily. Or think of batteries that cannot be replaced. Do they all commit this fallacy, too? Do they harm the economy and therefore indirectly also themselves?

Or is it a matter of how long the window is used before it is broken? If so, how long? You could also make nearly unbreakable glass (buttons, rockets, etc.) but at very high costs for the company and therefore also the consumer. What role do the costs play in all of this? Is it an equilibrium? When does the fallacy start and normal 'crap product' cycle end?

I've never seen any explanation of this alleged fallacy that answers any of these questions.

Post reply on HN