Live data from Hacker News

Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

spacex.com

471–480 of 559 posts

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

#471
post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that compare with other rocket systems?

Pretty poorly, Soyuz has 4 fatalities (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11) during it's over 140 flights, Crew Dragon has none.

That's a unnormalized metric: shuttle had two failures in 135 flights and generally carried up way more people per flight and also did way more stuff per flight.

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

#472
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instantaneous nature of the explosion would certainly be consistent with a self destruct.

With we had another angle of the booster during engine relight. From the SpaceX feed maybe engines didn't start back up? Hard to tell. Could have been leaving the expected flight area maybe?

There is a brief view as the inner ring of engines relight (note that the 3 core engines don’t shut down). All but one come back online initially but begin shutting down again shortly thereafter. There are some pretty violent events happening near the engines during the time that they are being lost one by one. The more I look at it, the more it looks like an actual RUD. It seems like maybe those violent events around the engines compromised something in the mid section of the rocket, which is where the explosion originates from. Scott Manley speculated that the very fast flip manuever may have caused some issues with continuous fuel delivery into the plumbing which seems quite plausible given the erratic behavior of the engines after they first appear to relight without issue.

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

#474
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFTS activation indicates deviation from planned trajectory. It's unusual, being so late in the burn. Could be a guidance issue, but SpaceX should be pretty good at that by now. Could be engine underperformance, but we got nominal callouts and it would have to be pretty bad for AFTS to notice with minutes left, so that seems unlikely. I'd guess engine control (due to damage during staging) is the main suspect. We say…

I dunno, it looks like a nominal shutdown to me. The speed readout shows rapidly decreasing acceleration just as the engine displays go out instead of the telemetry suddenly going stale as you'd expect if it just blew up during the burn. Then , after the acceleration has gone to zero, the telemetry goes stale, so my guess would be on something going wrong during shutdown (ullage collapse when the propellant sloshes f…

Starship engines were cut off at 8:03, while the nominal mission profile in Wikimedia mentions SECO at 8:33. The speed at cutoff was ~24000 km/h at an altitude of ~150 km. Without the AFTS, the Starship would have crashed somewhere in the Atlantic.

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

#475

Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.

Isn't an exploding rocket in space a bad thing - ie debris everywhere? I know space is big but aren't there now a few thousand more pieces of space junk to track. I suppose they're worried about a starship landing on someone's home - but still seems a tad premature.

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

#476

- 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)

"The super booster experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly".

Neat phrase for the booster explosion in the mesosphere.

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

#477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't post conspiracy theories that aren't even worth debunking here. In the same vein people are tired of debunking noahs ark, the young earth, the flat earth, and intelligent design. It's just tiresome at this juncture. It is a waste of everyone's time and if you insist on doing it you can do it on facebook instead.

[flagged]

Wikipedia has an article just for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apoll...

The real trick would have been sending the astronauts on a rocket into Earth orbit for over a week without being detected by Soviet radar operators, who would have been more than eager to share the coordinates with the world, and then somehow sending radio signals back to Earth always from the direction of the moon. https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories...

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

#478
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I've not seen up close shots of the launch facility yet, but it looks like it's all still there without massive amounts of destruction either.

It's amazing what happens when you apply 60 year old solutions (water deluge).

I thought the system they use here is unlike anything used before.

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

#479
post #475

Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.

Isn't an exploding rocket in space a bad thing - ie debris everywhere? I know space is big but aren't there now a few thousand more pieces of space junk to track. I suppose they're worried about a starship landing on someone's home - but still seems a tad premature.

It's more of an issue when the thing exploding is in orbit. This was a (just) suborbital launch, and I think the first stage was quite a bit slower/ lower than orbital at the point that it exploded, meaning it'll all just fall to Earth

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

#480
post #404
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

i don't see what vaccines have to to with any of this.

also, as cool as "facts" are it really bothers me when people take their opinion and present it as fact or as truth. you see: the truth is something abstract and usually, not always, but usually there is a matter of interpretation and a gradient of the truth. I'm not speaking of well researched things that have mountains of evidence behind them. I'm speaking about people having really strong opinions without understanding the evidence behind it and without understanding the nuances of what applies when. It's really fashionable to shit all over other people when they don't agree to a T with what you are saying but IMHO it's the wrong thing to do - being curious and actually unpacking what they are trying to say if they can have a civilized discussion and logic actually works with them is the way to go.

Post reply on HN