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

Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 559 posts

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#331

Post by csomar »

Podgajski wrote: post #237
DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have said the same thing about airplanes at the turn of the 20th century and dismissed them as fads for rich people. Or about computers. Or the internet. And yet here you are. > you talk about new eras, but nothing changes. And yes, it does affect my life. I have dreamed my whole life of this stuff happening. After growing up in a "third world" country, I navigated the byzantine US immigration system, went…

What you’re telling me here is that you’re just being selfish. This is good for you so it should be good for all of humanity. I’m sorry, but it’s not. I appreciate a lot of good things when they happen. I’m saying this this is not a good thing. Do you think it’s a good thing because it made your life better. But you’re only seeing it from your perspective. You don’t have a holistic view of the world.

And how is some company launching a rocket involved in you not being able to get housing? I understand your frustration but you can’t just blame anything for it.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#332

Post by hetman »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #246
ceejayoz wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The readout showed 20k km/hour towards the end. It was definitely near orbital speed. You might be looking at the first stage’s data. Edit: 24,124 km/hr when telemetry stopped on the stream; 15k mph.

A 'k km' is an Mm, so 24 Mm/h , (or 6.67 km/s , if you'd like to go full SI)

Technically correct but not really clear of it helps clear communication in this context. SI natives think of a "kilometre" as its own thing (in the same way one thinks about a "mile") rather than thinking about it as a thousandfold multiple of a metre.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#333

Post by ben_w »

dave78 wrote: post #318
KineticLensman wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Challenger was destroyed by an FTS system No. The shuttle broke up when the overall stack became unstable due to the right hand SRB separating because a strut that attached it to the external tank failed (due to a blowtorch effect from a failed O-ring). The Challenger orbiter ended up 'on top' and broke into several chunks - without involvement of any FTS - because of the aerodynamic stress (one of these chunks was…

I'm very aware of why it initially broke up. But once that started, the range safety officer did activate the FTS system. The point is that rockets carrying crew do indeed have FTS systems - presence of a crew doesn't negate that need.

The SRBs (and the EFTs) had FTS's, but the Orbiters didn't.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#334

Post by fallingknife »

ceejayoz wrote: post #293
theyinwhy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone downvoting is hopefully aware that Tesla is doing this exact thing with their autopilot. "10 active lawsuits going to court next year" [0]. But let's all trust Elon to do a better job when roadtrips become spacetrips. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/t...

My biggest objection to autopilot (beyond the misleading branding) is that other drivers and pedestrians haven’t consented to the beta testing that might kill them. I think this is a serious ethical and regulatory failing. Someone hopping in a rocket presumably knows what they’re signing up for, and I have a lot more confidence in the FAA; they seem to be a lot stricter on safety.

Pedestrians didn't consent to human drivers either. The general public also didn't consent to any other human activity that could kill them in general. So that's a line that gets trotted out for self driving, but not one that is really used for anything else.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#335

Post by x86x87 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #107
KennyBlanken wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.

The industry laughed it up as Falcon 9 failed landing repeatedly. ( https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ ) Then they shifted to “ok but do it 10x”. They aren’t laughing now. They’ve lost as many Starships as NASA lost Space Shuttles so far, with no deaths. It’s a test program for now. Ask the “rest of the industry” about how Boeing’s Starliner is going. That’s what failure looks like.

This is not about laughing or not. This is about if it was objectfully a successful test or not.

If you want to take the stance that any test is a success that's fine but remember this depends on what your definition of success is.

The other thing to keep in mind is that past success is not always a good predictor of future success.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#336

Post by x86x87 »

honeybadger1 wrote: post #299
ceejayoz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry laughed it up as Falcon 9 failed landing repeatedly. ( https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ ) Then they shifted to “ok but do it 10x”. They aren’t laughing now. They’ve lost as many Starships as NASA lost Space Shuttles so far, with no deaths. It’s a test program for now. Ask the “rest of the industry” about how Boeing’s Starliner is going. That’s what failure looks like.

Naysayers offer a problem for every solution, can't stand these types. This is an enormous achievement for SpaceX.

Move fast and break things, amiright?

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#337

Post by ceejayoz »

fallingknife wrote: post #334
ceejayoz wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest objection to autopilot (beyond the misleading branding) is that other drivers and pedestrians haven’t consented to the beta testing that might kill them. I think this is a serious ethical and regulatory failing. Someone hopping in a rocket presumably knows what they’re signing up for, and I have a lot more confidence in the FAA; they seem to be a lot stricter on safety.

Pedestrians didn't consent to human drivers either. The general public also didn't consent to any other human activity that could kill them in general. So that's a line that gets trotted out for self driving, but not one that is really used for anything else.

Human drivers aren't "in beta".

I know there are human drivers when I'm crossing the crosswalk. I don't know which ones have delegated to a beta self-driving app.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#338

Post by x86x87 »

imetatroll wrote: post #238
KennyBlanken wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.

The way you dismiss SpaceX's accomplishments is just hilarious. As if you are some "insider" in the space industry. ROLF. SpaceX is awesome and inspiring in what it is doing.

Are we reading the same comment? I don't see any dismissal of previous accomplishments. Why is calling this failure a failure bad? You need failures to learn and hopefully be successful eventually.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#339

Post by midasuni »

inglor_cz wrote: post #249
thinkcontext wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about that but indications are it won't have an escape system like other manned craft.

Space Shuttle didn't have an escape system either; its total death toll was 14.

Absolute numbers don’t really mean much. More than 14 people have died since this test flight on American roads.

Shuttle death rate was about 1 in 75, which is insanely high.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#340

Post by x86x87 »

kortex wrote: post #290
KennyBlanken wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.

I'm sorry, what's that, something about failure? I can't hear you over the thunderous roar of cheers from the Spacex engineering team after stage separation. https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?si=FZ30c9jmkMOmYo3n&t=180 Certainly doesn't sound like the folks who built the thing thought it was a failure.

Are the folks that build it the most objective observers?

You can call a duck an eagle all day long but that does not make it an eagle.

Post reply on HN