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

SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#341

Post by throw-7462637 »

a4isms wrote: post #91
eisvogel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking this as well... It spiraled seemingly forever without failing, while they hoovered telemetry off of it, until pressing the big red button. Massive fault tolerance at play. SpaceX is awesome in so many ways. Thanks Elon.

Perhaps you mean, "Thanks Gwynne Shotwell." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell I think HN understands the difference between a charismatic leader who is good at laying out a vision and generating a tremendous amount of hype around it (like Steve Jobs) and someone who is an expert at actually realizing a vision (Steve Wozniak, Tim Cook). They may both be necessary for success, but if you are praising the ro…

Life is not a zero sum game. Clearly Elon and Gwynne work very well together and Gwynne is a very talented operator. Both talents are essential but I do believe Elon’s talent would be harder to replace.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#343

Post by baq »

szoszon wrote: post #306
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…

If there are 5 more of these being built, how they will incorporate anything they learned during this failed attempt? Isn't that just a waste of money?

Some parts are interchangeable.

The countdown process needs optimization. There are things missing and things which shouldn’t be there. We’re talking about speed of loading propellant, density of it, etc.

Then there’s software. So much software.

And a million other things. Rockets are complex, launching them doubly so.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#344

Post by emilecantin »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #81
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…

How much did starship cost?

They're still designing it, and learning to build it (building the "machine that builds the machine"). They've already scrapped booster 4 / ship 20 without even a test flight.

Today's rocket was a byproduct of what they're actually working on, so it's hard to pin a price on it. I'd guess a few million dollars in engines, and a few hundred thousand in steel? This is all stuff they would've needed to find a way to dispose of anyway; the next booster in line (B9) already has hundreds of improvements. Among these are improvements to thrust vector control and engine shielding, both of which were involved in the issues with today's flight.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#345

Post by Denvercoder9 »

rhacker wrote: post #295
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…

Yikes, what's the chance just enough rockets will cause the next one to crash and blow up in Miami?

Zero, given that the launch corridor doesn't pass over land, and all rockets are equipped with a Flight Termination System that blows up the rocket if it deviates from that corridor.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#346

Post by bumby »

version_five wrote: post #315
bumby wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 sailor…

That is a real issue. I think part of it involves creating a culture where it's acceptable to make failures as long as those failures were the result of a sound decision process.

What you don't want is a culture that is either a) afraid to take any risk because they are afraid of career consequences or b) willing to roll the dice with bad decision processes due to biases and bad incentives.

Example for a): bureaucrats who are unwilling to push the envelope because a bad outcome would effectively end their career

Example for b): making high-risk decisions due cost/schedule pressure, like competition for a contract

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#347

Post by dingosity »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #123
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…

The test was a massive success. So happy to see starship clear the towers. The largest rocket ever built, larger than the Saturn V. Are you kidding me?

Elon was setting expectations a couple days ago when he said "Let's just not explode on the launch pad" or somesuch. In that sense, mission definitely accomplished. "Massive" success? Not sure I would go that far, but success of a massive project? Absolutely. It would have been nice to see the mission hit all it's objectives, but I'm sure they got quite a bit of data and operational experience.

What would be a failure is if the next one has the same problem.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#348

Post by CydeWeys »

sandworm101 wrote: post #309
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 point would be that while SpaceX does save lots of money, it doesn't do so by producing cheap or less reliable rockets. It would never accept a failure rate any different than anyone else because, in aerospace, that isn't really a thing. SpaceX can certainly blast forwards with different business practices and different tolerance for developmental risks, but the final product will not be fundamentally different th…

> My point would be that while SpaceX does save lots of money, it doesn't do so by producing cheap or less reliable rockets.

It does though. During the development process. SpaceX will do five launches with lower reliability vehicles before the big launch providers will even do a single launch, and those five will have be cheaper in total. Of course, they aren't putting essential cargo (or god forbid people) on these higher risk test flights. By the time they're doing that they have developed certainty in the design.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#350

Post by mempko »

pas wrote: post #242
sandworm101 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space. Complicated high-energy systems have thousands of failure points. So to have any chance of success each failure point needs to be engineered below, by way of example, a 0.0001% chance of failure. That costs lots of money. But say one decides to accept more risk for less c…

SpaceX is doing the classic statistic thing[0], making spacecraft stronger where they explode until they don't. It's more like a hyperparameter search and less like QA for individual parts. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Survivor... :)

SpaceX is just doing what the Soviets did. The Soviets preferred to launch and learn just like SpaceX does today. Soviets also ran on a much smaller budget than NASA and preferred simplicity over complexity and constant tweaking.

The Soviets proved that methodology works and SpaceX continues it to this day. I have a feeling most that follow SpaceX think they are trying a new revolutionary approach here.

Post reply on HN