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

161–170 of 193 posts

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#161

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mlyle wrote: post #140
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally seen a video of a Saturn (unmanned), launching, that rose maybe half its height off the ground, stopped, descended back down, hit the launchpad, and blew up. That's pretty much "on launch". But that doesn't seem to have been a Saturn V. What was it? I'm pretty sure it was on Youtube, but a quck search failed to turn it up. So, maybe "not one Saturn V blew up on launch", but one of the Saturns did.

Are you thinking of Juno II AM-16? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJF26ukQgw

No. Nice fireball, though.

The one I'm thinking of came straight down, still vertical, nose up.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#162

Post by mlyle »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #161
mlyle wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of Juno II AM-16? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJF26ukQgw

No. Nice fireball, though. The one I'm thinking of came straight down, still vertical, nose up.

Maybe Vanguard TV-3? https://youtu.be/ZvnKfgDANKY?si=VeI-FUkLUBirM5ss&t=20

The third Redstone launch was also a lot like what you describe, but I can't find video.

There was another of the Vanguard ones where it rose a couple of inches and then shut down and fell... and survived and was launched awhile later.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#163

Post by the_third_wave »

the_third_wave wrote: post #113

This was mostly a success as far as test flights of experimental rockets go: it left the platform (which remained intact), it cleared the tower, continued on the set course, made it past stage separation and the second stage made it close to orbital speed and as such gave proof of the validity of the concept once the wrinkles have been ironed out. As predictable the news media - most of which seem to have an antipath…

Again to the downvoters: instead of trying to get an opinion counter to your own greyed out tell us why you do not agree. Let's hear it, what did I get wrong? Certainly not the twisted media reporting on this launch as that is plain as daylight, visible for anyone who cares to look. What, then?

[ apparently click that down-arrow again... ]

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#164

Post by brg »

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?

saberience’s reply should be read because it is more complete and insightful, but perhaps there is a simpler intuitive answer. Error rates increase exponentially.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#165

Post by friend_and_foe »

sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote: post #160
valine wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest rocket ever built just got to space for the first time. Even without re-entry this is a milestone. They have a production line to build these things. They’ll roll out the next one and try again. It’s not like SLS where everything is expected to work perfectly.

Why is the size a milestone? I don't remember ever hearing NASA measure its achievements by the size of its rockets.

You've never heard the phrase "Saturn V is the largest rocket ever built"?

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#166

Post by panarky »

hinkley wrote: post #102
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?

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…

> Build a RAID array with 33 disks ...

Yes, naturally 33 > 1, so you might expect 33 times as many failures of individual components.

But your analogy between arrays of rocket engines and disks is apt, because both have redundancy to survive the failure of individual components.

For example, in the high-altitude flight test of the Starship prototype in May 2021, three of the 33 Raptor engines powering the first stage failed shortly after liftoff. The vehicle still managed to continue flying, reaching an altitude of 40 kilometers before failing due to a variety of causes.

> People genuinely don’t understand how statistics work

Indeed.

If an individual disk has MTBF of 2 million hours, the probability of it failing in the first year is 0.437%.

But put 33 of those disks in a RAID 6 array, which can tolerate 1 or 2 failures without replacement, and the probability of the entire array failing in the first year drops by a factor of ten to 0.0413%.

The statistics say the array is even more reliable than a single component by itself.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#167

Post by avhon1 »

imtringued wrote: post #149
avhon1 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, because the Apollo program is famous for never having any problems with unscheduled fires or explosions. Completely safe, it was. Sarcasm aside, NASA has blown up plenty of rockets. It's not a problem to blow up a rocket if it doesn't pose any substantial risk. NASA doesn't much like to blow up rockets anymore because it's contrary to how their operational model works: Congress gives NASA a task, a deadline,…

>Starship, on the other hand, is not being depended on by anybody at the moment. No project gets delayed or cancelled when it explodes; Did you forget the Artemis 2 mission? Starship appears to be a source of delays, not SLS.

I did not forget Artemis. Artemis 2 will not require Starship; it's just the Orion capsule going around the moon and back. Starship Human Landing System won't be needed until Artemis 3, which is currently scheduled for December 2025. That is a lot of time use to get Starship in shape to operate beyond Earth, and even if it isn't enough, won't result in the cancellation of the Artemis project.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#168

Post by JshWright »

grecy wrote: post #73
JshWright wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only one who was surprised by that outcome was Elon.

There is a tweet from Elon many months prior to the first launch that says "We've decided not to build a deluge system. That may turn out to be a mistake". They're testing and developing and learning. They're taking risks and making improvements as needed. As the most successful rocket company of all time by a VERY large margin, I'm pretty sure they know a heck of a lot more about rockets than you and I do, I'm willi…

It's not up to me to "let" them do anything. I think taking risks is a solid strategy, that clearly has worked for them.

The failure of the pad was entirely, 100% predictable. It's (literally) not rocket science. How concrete responds under pressure is a super well understood thing.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#169

Post by alphabettsy »

the_third_wave wrote: post #113

This was mostly a success as far as test flights of experimental rockets go: it left the platform (which remained intact), it cleared the tower, continued on the set course, made it past stage separation and the second stage made it close to orbital speed and as such gave proof of the validity of the concept once the wrinkles have been ironed out. As predictable the news media - most of which seem to have an antipath…

Maybe it’s your own biases at work as well. The major publications I frequent including the NYT talk about it as being progress even with the explosion and seem very neutral if not hopeful and positive.

NYT: “The journeys of Starship’s two parts ended in separate explosions. But the engineers at Elon Musk’s spaceflight company overcame problems that marred the rocket’s first flight in April.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/science/spacex-starship-l...

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#170

Post by modeless »

pxmpxm wrote: post #82

I must be the only one that can't stand the laugh track equivalent they keep pushing into their launch videos. Just reeks of tacky marketing.

A "laugh track" sometimes implies fabrication, but the cheering is real from live microphones in their facilities where employees are gathered to watch the launch.
Post reply on HN