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

Starship Flight 7

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#371

Post by 14 »

coldtea wrote: post #358
dpifke wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity. Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880060983734858130

[flagged]

Even NASA years into their existence has suffered catastrophic fatal failures. Even with the best and most knowledgeable experts working on it we are ultimately still in the infancy of space flight. Just like airlines every incident we try and understand the cause and prevent it from happening again. Lastly what they are doing is incredibly difficult with probably thousands of things that could go wrong. I think they are doing an amazing job and hope one day, even if I miss it, that space flight becomes acceptable to all who wish to go to space.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#372

Post by razemio »

coldtea wrote: post #358
dpifke wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity. Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880060983734858130

[flagged]

Can you name a space company with less failures? Also I think it is unfair to even compare SpaceX to anything else, because of the insane amount of starts / tests combined unparalleled creativity.

According to this website their current success rate is 99,18%. That's a good number I guess? Considering other companies did not even land their stages for years.

https://spaceinsider.tech/2024/07/31/ula-vs-spacex/#:~:text=....

Re: Starship Flight 7

#373

Post by kryptn »

mrandish wrote: post #363
kryptn wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in front of them enough.

Sure. In a similar way as when the moon is low on the horizon and I stand in my back yard facing it. There's the moon. It's right in front of me... :-)

in a way that if they kept their heading there was a higher than acceptable risk of impact and they had to divert, yes.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#375

Post by distortionfield »

bamboozled wrote: post #294
artemonster wrote: post #53

I like how chopsticks catch (a very impressive feat) completely distracts everyone from totally fucked timeline and already spent budget on mars mission. Its like any criticism is being drowned in loud cheers. Only time will tell, but I hope I will be wrong on this one

I actually get this take, but for me it's the ultimate distraction and a way to legitimize the CEOs rubbish behavior. "How can he be wrong when he is a genius and can land a rocket in two chopsticks?"

I’m in a slightly different boat. The CEO’s rubbish behavior sucks, but the company shouldn’t be diminished by that. The people behind SpaceX are a modernd day Apollo Program. Absolute marvels of engineering.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#376

Post by andrewflnr »

nomilk wrote: post #268
llm_trw wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instagram requires login. Twitter does not.

I'd have sworn I was unable to view tweets recently without logging in. But maybe I was wrong. Instagram lets me view the video without login (I have to click the 'X' in the top-right of annoying popup, but I can watch it without logging in).

It's not just you, they've been inconsistent about letting you see tweets.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#377

Post by distortionfield »

jeltz wrote: post #312
cruffle_duffle wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are making the impossible merely late. Which, you know, is still pretty fucking cool. I’d love to see any other country or competitor catch a stainless steel rocket larger than the Statue of Liberty that was just cruising back to earth at sub orbital velocity. Everybody else is so far behind it’s not even funny. Spacex is cool as shit. Screw the “skeptics” and haters. Some people have a complete lack of imaginat…

No, they are making the possible very late.

> very late

when was your fully reusable full-flow staged combustion rocket engine scheduled flight, again?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#378

Post by andrewflnr »

dmurray wrote: post #200
Retric wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arlines are extremely cautious around these kinds of one off events. It’s not about the calculated risks, but the uncertainty around if they have the right information in the first place. Sure it may have broken up at 145km miles, but what if someone messed up and it actually was 14.5km etc.

No, airlines do not build in a safety factor sufficient to cover an important measurement being off by a factor of 10. They don't ground flights because the pilot might load 2,000 litres of fuel instead of 20,000 litres. They don't take evasive action in case the other plane is travelling at 5,000 knots instead of 500 knots. They don't insist on a 30-km runway because the runway published as 3 km might only be 300 me…

Can you not understand the difference between a stated measurement of a runway or drain fuel requirement, and a stated location of a unique explosion that happened just a few minutes ago? Are you prepared to bet 200 lives that no one fat-fingered the number?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#380

Post by andrewflnr »

kopirgan wrote: post #335

US scientists and engineers are second to none in the world. But they are distant second to their own marketing guys in innovation. Rapid unscheduled disassembly!

RUD is in fact an old joke in rocketry, I believe invented by engineers to poke fun at marketing "innovation".
Post reply on HN