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

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#491

Post by valine »

szoszon wrote: post #459
valine wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evaluating the reliability of every component is extremely expensive. If you had perfect knowledge of the reliability of every component, then sure. It would be cheaper to build a perfect rocket first, then launch it. The cost saving comes because it’s cheaper to launch the rocket and see where it fails than it is to exhaustively evaluate the reliability of every component.

But you still need to do it for something like a rocket that is supposed to carry people in the future. In to long term, it's better to evaluate reliability of every component at the beginning, than do it after if fails.

You actually don’t. With a high launch cadence you can make statistical inferences about the reliability of the system as a whole. This isn’t the 80s where you launch one disposable rocket every 6 months. Starship is fully reusable and will likely fly multiple times a week carrying non human payloads.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#492

Post by saberdancer »

baq wrote: post #311
bitL wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds), then at around 30 seconds you can see some explosion at the bottom, throwing away some surface parts. Multiple failed engines. Then it went into an unsurvivable "tailspin" if there was any crew around. Cheering for failure was the topping.

Go play some KSP, you’ll learn to appreciate not blowing up on the pad.

This looked exactly like my problems in KSP. Rocket starts to be uncontrollable, I try to separate, previous stage is still under thrust which means I am unable to separate and then boom.

It even spun like a KSP rocket.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#493

Post by soperj »

908B64B197 wrote: post #474
kortex wrote: post #365

Initially posted this as a reply, but going top-level, cause the hot takes are too spicy for my liking. So the plan was to test x, y, and z. Launch sequence and takeoff, stage separation and Starship engine light, and the post-launch stuff like booster wet landing, reentry, and heat tiles. The booster by itself is not aerodynamic, so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. And if you have starship, you migh…

To me it's an incredible achievement. Raptor engine development started in 2012. Starship's development started around the same time. They now achieved max Q and got flight data all the way to booster separation. On real, flight ready hardware. By an all-American team started right here in California using private funding from an already profitable all-American privately developed launch platform (the Falcon 9). This…

> This is in contrast to the SLS and it's predecessor the Constellation program (the SLS really being an evolution of the Ares I and V) that started in 2005 and, so far yielded a single successful test flight

You forgot to include that this was also by an "all-American team".

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#494

Post by blake929 »

I get that there are multiple endpoints being tested here and some of them may have been satisfied, but I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world on hacker news where people are arguing that multiple failed engines, a failed stage detachment and an exploding rocket worth millions of dollars and and carrying a large number of limited supply raptor engines is a "massive success". Can we just call it for what it is? Mixed results maybe? Is that not a fair assessment?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#496

Post by cdash »

kortex wrote: post #193
perihelions wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting thought: Starship just expended more engines on a *test* (39?) than I believe the entire SLS program has budgeted through the end of the 2020's (16 from shuttle + 18 new = 34?). edit: Never mind, it's slightly less – see the comment below correcting me. The SLS program has 40, not 34, RS-25's.

Yep. And they are trying to get Raptor 2 to less than $2M a pop (iirc). The "cattle not pets" of rocket science.

I think they are actually below the $2M mark already and the actual goal is to get to 250k per engine (At least for non gimbal sea-level engines).

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#497

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

mcculley wrote: post #104
simondotau wrote: post #6

Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad. Suggesting that this test “failed” is at best a mischaracterisation.

> "Success was defined as the rocket leaving the launchpad." I am confused. Everything I read before the launch said that it was intended to reach orbital altitude and make it around the Earth.

That was the goal, but failures are to be expected at this stage of testing. Clearing the tower was a primary goal since a ground level explosion would cause a lot of expensive damage. Clearly there were multiple failures.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#498

Post by samwillis »

soperj wrote: post #486
samwillis wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke but that's all also import rehearsal for all the teams responsible for each stage of the flight. The compleat plan, in full detail, with the "expectation" that it will happen is essential to learning. If you don't start practicing these details until later in the development you have missed an opportunity to fine tune them and prepare for all eventualities.

> compleat Sorry, i've seen this spelling enough to now ask if this is a word that I don't know about or if it's just a mis-spelling of complete. Not trying to pick on you. I've had errors before, especially in space stuff (altitude & attitude).

Typo+iPhone+Dyslexia

I usually edit my posts after posting (sometimes multiple times), I find going back and rereading them I always find errors. Will leave that mistake for prosperity and context. Dyslexia is both a gift and a curse, but only if you let it.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#499

Post by stetrain »

dweinus wrote: post #478

Came here to see fan boys call an explosion a success; did not disappoint. This rocket is compared often to the Saturn V. Number of times the Saturn V exploded: 0. "Fail fast" for launching satellites is one thing, but this is meant to safely carry people.

This launch was not carrying people. This system will not carry people from launch until dozens or potentially hundreds of successful flights have occurred.

SpaceX probably also has experience with crew safety given their track record with crew flights for NASA.

This test was not a total success nor a worst case failure. SpaceX were pretty clear on their expectations and this fell within them.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#500

Post by Taywee »

soperj wrote: post #486
samwillis wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke but that's all also import rehearsal for all the teams responsible for each stage of the flight. The compleat plan, in full detail, with the "expectation" that it will happen is essential to learning. If you don't start practicing these details until later in the development you have missed an opportunity to fine tune them and prepare for all eventualities.

> compleat Sorry, i've seen this spelling enough to now ask if this is a word that I don't know about or if it's just a mis-spelling of complete. Not trying to pick on you. I've had errors before, especially in space stuff (altitude & attitude).

An internet search can be illustrative: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/compleat
Post reply on HN