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

401–410 of 559 posts

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

#401

Post by s1artibartfast »

idlewords wrote: post #194
bryanlarsen wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't necessarily have to redesign the booster. The booster completed its primary mission of boosting successfully. It survived long enough that it seems reasonable to say that if they wouldn't have attempted boost back it would successfully coasted to a splash in the ocean. So the SuperHeavy booster can likely be used as is, if they're willing to spend an extra ~$50M per mission on not recover the booster.

I guess it depends on the test program priorities. If Elon has promised everyone a succulent ham if they can get Starship to orbit before some deadline, then you're absolutely right. If instead they want to get the most out of every flight test, then they'll take the time to fly a fix for the "bottom half blows up" issue.

I is a lot more complicated than that.

There is a trade off between data per flight, total timeline, and overall cost.

I dont think data per flight is the driving goal. There are lots of unknown, and if you stop completely for every problem, you are aren't learning about new problems.

As long as they get the ship up and make some progress, it isnt critical if these boosters blow up or sink the bottom of the ocean as planned

They have 4 boosters built and 3 more in production, and FAA license for 20 launches per year. My guess is that if the fix takes substantial time, they will work it into future production and keep going with what they have.

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

#402

Post by WillPostForFood »

pantalaimon wrote: post #376
ceejayoz wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question here is what happens with a crewed second stage that has a problem with its engines/fuel. We’ve yet to see designs for the crewed interior beyond very conceptual stuff. Maybe something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule for launch abort.

How did Space Shuttle approach this problem?

They added this system after Challenger, seems extremely limited.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/crew-escape-sy...

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

#403

Post by wheelerof4te »

ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

[flagged]

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

#404

Post by hilux »

x86x87 wrote: post #363
lutorm wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean this was a launch failure or a test failure? It was obviously a launch failure, but even the most optimistic wouldn't have expected anything else. As for whether the test was a failure: since it successfully did a bunch of things that didn't work the last time, why would you say it's a failure? A failure would have been scattering the pad all over again, and not getting to stage sep. Or worse.

You have to define upfront what you want to get from a test. After that you go back and see if what you got is what you expected. Optimistic/Pessimistic does not really matter. By this criteria, I would say failure/partial failure or partial sucess. There is no way this was a success. Also, everyone can call this what they want. The thing that grinds my gears is not respecting that other people do have a different op…

They did define what they wanted; several incremental goals, not just one. You can watch the pre-launch video to hear it for yourself.

Years before Covid, my neighbor had an "opinion" that vaccines were unnecessary/dangerous, so she wouldn't get vaccinated. Just like you, she said "you have your opinion, and I have mine." In today's woke culture, that makes me the bad guy for not respecting her opinion, mansplaining, etc.

But opinions don't trump facts. At least, they shouldn't

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

#405

Post by codebolt »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #403
ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

[flagged]

This generation has too many computer scientists, not enough physicists (and the few physicists remaining are all focused on woo woo).

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

#406

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #403
ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

[flagged]

SpaceX can reliably deliver payloads to orbit at much cheaper prices than anything before. The Moon program had its share of disasters, near-disasters and other failures (Apollo 1 burned with all its crew on the ground). Starship is a vehicle in development and will obviously have all sorts of bugs and edge cases to be worked out.

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

#407

Post by kranke155 »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #403
ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

[flagged]

Are you really suggesting what I think you're suggesting?

Pretty sure we can land things on the moon if we needed to. We just placed the James Webb Telescope there. We just don't have the political will or necessity. Ho long was it between the first trip to the South Pole and the first permanent base? 1911 to 1944. And that was on Earth, where supplying that base is much easier than the humongous expenditure it was to go to the Moon or supply a lunar base there.

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

#408

Post by lovecg »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #403
ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

[flagged]

That’s easy. Give NASA 4-5% of the federal budget like it had in the 60s and we’ll go back in no time. This stuff is ridiculously expensive. It’s not the “how”, it’s the political “why” that doesn’t have an answer right now.

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

#409

Post by kranke155 »

codebolt wrote: post #405
wheelerof4te wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This generation has too many computer scientists, not enough physicists (and the few physicists remaining are all focused on woo woo).

Why would you need a new generation of physicist to get a rocket on the moon at this point. The physics of doing so are well established.

You need a reason and money to fund it. Which Musk supplied.

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

#410

Post by kranke155 »

refulgentis wrote: post #394
ironyman wrote: post #89

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

Interesting re: good result...I've sort of lost track because the program's timeline has been extended several times: what sort of results are they shooting for?

Fully reusable rockets ?
Post reply on HN