SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#311

Post by baq » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:56 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #199

simondotau wrote: post #6

Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.

It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds), then at around 30 seconds you can see some explosion at the bottom, throwing away some surface parts. Multiple failed engines. Then it went into an unsurvivable "tailspin" if there was any crew around. Cheering for failure was the topping.

Go play some KSP, you’ll learn to appreciate not blowing up on the pad.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#312

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:56 PM UTC

haunter wrote: post #8

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&t=2920s (the cheering is actually really funny cause the launch was already a success)

Some Tesla events have been shown to have artificially-inserted cheers to show more enthusiasm than the crowd actually had. I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing that for SpaceX, too, but I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX launches had a lot of enthusiastic people in whatever crowd watched them. It was pretty telling that we didn't hear the roar of the engines on the "cheering" track, which would have happened for pretty much every recording of people actually watching the launch.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#313

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:56 PM UTC

dingosity wrote: post #274

the_third_wave wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect SpaceX will have to add something resembling an escape system before the thing gets "man-rated". That system could also be used to protect the passengers in case of a failed landing. It will add weight and thus lower the carrying capacity but they seem to have enough margin to allow for such an addition. They already have the header tanks in the top of Starship, adding a number of escape engines and some ex…

I think they're using the Starship to go from Gateway Station to lunar surface. So you could add an escape system, but where would you escape to?

No spacecraft (except the ISS) has a post-launch escape vehicle. Lunar Starship isn't really in-scope for a launch escape system.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#314

Post by shinryuu » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #264

mabbo wrote: post #61

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one success. But it costs $2B per launch (and climbing) and has taken 12 years to get here. Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. Starship will launch a half a dozen "failures" before they achieve…

> "Fail fast" applies to more than just software. Yes, but let's not take the analogy too far. For people who work in safety-critical design (including software), it takes a different mindset than what is often prevalent in silicon valley. When the stakes are high, you don't really want to "move fast and break things". You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payloa…

I think it's a matter of failing in a safe environment. Clearly that's what space x is doing. They fail spectularly, but they do so within the confines of a safe environment.

For the real launch they've already mapped out the failure modes and are able to prevent them when it really matters.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#315

Post by version_five » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #264

mabbo wrote: post #61

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one success. But it costs $2B per launch (and climbing) and has taken 12 years to get here. Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. Starship will launch a half a dozen "failures" before they achieve…

> "Fail fast" applies to more than just software. Yes, but let's not take the analogy too far. For people who work in safety-critical design (including software), it takes a different mindset than what is often prevalent in silicon valley. When the stakes are high, you don't really want to "move fast and break things". You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payloa…

I agree with everything in your comment. One thing I've wondered about re space exploration though is how we reconcile what I think is pretty much universal acknowledgement that we have to do everything possible to avoid loss of life with the inherent danger of space travel, and the "drag" that a zero-tolerance safety focus can have on culture.

Put another way, what would global exploration have looked like if sailors refused to accept the risks of early ocean crossings?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#316

Post by throw-7462637 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #107

shadowgovt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense for prototypes. It's been slightly fewer decades since we've been doing consumer software. Does anybody expect version 1 to be bug free?

You're thinking about this like an engineer rather than a PR consultant or a journalist looking to write a hit piece on Musk. Even now, it's not hard to ask the somewhat specious question of how we can be 70+ years into aerospace tech and we still need our rockets to blow up.

As others mentioned the hit pieces will come anyway. The success that SpaceX has had so far very clearly shows that aiming high and embracing failure is the best way to develop rockets.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#317

Post by AviationAtom » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

nomilk wrote: post #157

Anyone reading the headline could easily be misled: this was a massive success. Some context: - This was the first "integrated test" of the Starship space craft with its booster - The whole thing together was 120 meters tall - It will be one order of magnitude larger than the current largest rocket in terms of carrying capacity (~150 tonnes if it needs to return the booster, 250 if it doesn't) - There's 5 more of the…

I wonder how many folks have looked at the other details of Starship.

One I find most impressive?

Weight of Starship when fueled: 11 million pounds

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#318

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #180

LeonM wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not known, as SpaceX is a private company, and the rocket is still being developed. But I'd say a whole lot less than $2B per launch ;-)

You touch upon an interesting advantage that private space engineering has that, depending on one's attitude on the topic, may or may not be fair. NASA has to do everything in the public eye and their process reflects this. Private enterprise is allowed to hide information, which implies they are allowed to massage information. (... this probably says unfortunate things about the nature of governance by public sentim…

Some things are transparent.

The SLS has spent 23.8 billion in nominal dollars so far. SpaceX has received about 9.8 Billion total investment, which puts an upper limit on operating losses.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#319

Post by ralusek » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #281

mabbo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing something, I'm describing it. This is what SpaceX is doing , and it's quite successful. And you can look all the way back to their little hopper version of the Falcon 9 and see that this strategy has been the key to them undercutting the launch market significantly. My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have…

> My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have ten not-100%-success launches before then. I'm not the best way to frame this is "first one to a single successful launch". Reliability matters when you're dealing with high-risk scenarios, so a better measure is "probability of a given launch being successful".

They meant "will have worked out enough of the kinks by their 5th successful launch so as to be operating at a high success rate."

Lots of falcons failed, but you don't see anybody worried about their payload or crew on Falcon 9 these days.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#320

Post by marvin » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #213

intrasight wrote: post #170

When it started doing cartwheels and the announcer said "beginning the flip for stage separation" I was like "WTF does that mean? That can't be nominal!"

Nah it's the nominal KSP launch trajectory. You forget to add first stage fins, launch up to the gravity turn, do the cartwheel, separate and continue to orbit. Seems like they forgot to check their staging though.

Imagine how magnificent it would have been if they managed stage separation after doing a 360 cartwheel, via some sick on-the-fly manual intervention. I was half hoping for it.