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

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#181

Post by grecy »

JshWright wrote: post #168
grecy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, and they analyzed the risk, looked at the percentage chance it would be a problem, and the impact of the problem.

Then they put the deluge system on a priority list with 10,000 other things that had to get done before the first flight and did what needed to be done, but likely skipped over the nice to haves, knowing they could always come back to them.

For all you know building the deluge system for flight one may have delayed them x months, and they simply decided to take the risk because they needed the political capital of a visible launch attempt to even keep the program alive.

I’m a bit shocked people on hn don’t understand rapid prototyping and iterative development.

You genuinely seem upset or angry that a private company did something other than what you think it should have. That’s not healthy.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#182

Post by 38321003thrw »

alphabettsy wrote: post #179
the_third_wave wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is called "progress" and is the reason for doing these tests. If you really care about this I suggest looking back in the development history of SpaceX' current cash cow, the Falcon 9. Look for similar explosive events and compare that to the current ease with which they seem to launch and land and relaunch these things now. Now fast-forward another 10 years and imagine the same happening with this new rock…

Yea I already know that and I’ve been following. The articles also say the same thing about progress so what’s the issue?

I did say “compare”.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#183

Post by IAmGraydon »

TT-392 wrote: post #67
IAmGraydon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes in terms of thrust, it’s almost double the nearest competitor, the SLS. SLS generates 8.8M pounds while the Starship generates 16.7M pounds.

Wouldn't its nearest competitor be the N1 rocket? That thing did have some liftoffs.

Yes you’re probably right, it had just slightly more thrust than the SLS, at about 9M pounds.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#184

Post by rkagerer »

pixl97 wrote: post #87
modeless wrote: post #6

I'm disappointed there won't be a test of the heat shield, but it's definitely a successful test. All engines lit and the new "hot staging" stage separation was seemingly successful, despite the explosions later on. Can't wait for the next one!

Scott Manley has a short up on booster engine relight issues after hot staging https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac

This is a really good video, I didn't initially catch what was going on in the grid of rocket indicator icons.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#185

Post by rkagerer »

mlyle wrote: post #162
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also known as 'Flopnik'

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#186

Post by JshWright »

grecy wrote: post #181
JshWright wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, and they analyzed the risk, looked at the percentage chance it would be a problem, and the impact of the problem. Then they put the deluge system on a priority list with 10,000 other things that had to get done before the first flight and did what needed to be done, but likely skipped over the nice to haves, knowing they could always come back to them. For all you know building the deluge system for flight one m…

What language have I used that suggests I'm upset? As far as I can tell, all I've done is point out that "what happens to concrete under millions of pounds force" is not some area full of unknowns where the outcome wasn't 100% predictable.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#187

Post by grecy »

JshWright wrote: post #186
grecy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and they analyzed the risk, looked at the percentage chance it would be a problem, and the impact of the problem. Then they put the deluge system on a priority list with 10,000 other things that had to get done before the first flight and did what needed to be done, but likely skipped over the nice to haves, knowing they could always come back to them. For all you know building the deluge system for flight one m…

What language have I used that suggests I'm upset? As far as I can tell, all I've done is point out that "what happens to concrete under millions of pounds force" is not some area full of unknowns where the outcome wasn't 100% predictable.

But you’re not ok with them doing it their way. Like you think you have some say

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#188

Post by bryanlarsen »

saberience wrote: post #109
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?

I'm going to assume you made this comment in good faith. Most rockets (almost all) use just a few engines. The Saturn V had five engines, and the Space Shuttle had a total of five engines (including the Solid Rocket Boosters). The Atlas V uses one engine, New Glenn seven engines, etc. Historically, there has only been one rocket that attempted the 'many engine' approach before now: the N1 by the Soviets, which they n…

Falcon Heavy has 27 engines.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#189

Post by bryanlarsen »

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.

The gating factor for Artemis 3 (not 2) appears to be the space suits, not Starship.

Re: SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight

#190

Post by JshWright »

grecy wrote: post #187
JshWright wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What language have I used that suggests I'm upset? As far as I can tell, all I've done is point out that "what happens to concrete under millions of pounds force" is not some area full of unknowns where the outcome wasn't 100% predictable.

But you’re not ok with them doing it their way. Like you think you have some say

Where did I imply I have any "say"? I very explicitly said the exact opposite. I also clearly said that risk taking is a good strategy that is clearly working for them. This is just one case where they got it wrong, and the thing they got wrong was 1000% predictable. That literally all I'm saying...
Post reply on HN