Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

apnews.com

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#501
Somewhere there is a team that is over the top happy about an incredibly successful explosion. Their job was to make sure that if flight path deviated beyond some threshhold that the whole vehicle would be blown into tiny parts that would become ballistically safe. They were on the edge of their seats on how well that would work.

They saw the lift off team celebrate their success. They saw the booster team fist pumping. They saw the concern from the separation team and their own anticipation spiked. They saw the flight correction team studying realtime data intensely and taking some pride that all that spinning was semi-controlled. The anxiety for the demolition team had to be through the roof. Then, finally, it happened. The system they had spent so much effort to design and integrate finally deployed. It didn't fire prematurely. It didn't fail to deploy. It got everything exactly right.

There is still a ton of data to evaluate, and some improvements to be made. But that unnoticed team from the back of the shed at the back of the lot is celebrating picture perfect execution. Here's a salute to real engineers doing real work, getting it exactly right, and getting no credit. Well done.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#502
post #8

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&t=2920s (the cheering is actually really funny cause the launch was already a success)

> clearing the tower was all we hoped All, really ? What about the flight plan ? I like the American philosophy to see the good part of experiences even when thinks don’t go as planned, but IMHO I feel like it's drifting more and more from « there’s good in failure » to « let’s call everything a success ». May be wrong, just my European point of view through the transatlantic optic fiber.

For myself, I'd feel like a test flight was a full success if it was able to test all the important bits. From that perspective not testing stage separation, second stage ignition, and reentry makes this a partial success but a partial failure as well.

EDIT: Perhaps a better way to think about it is, if it had crashed back to the stand and damaged things there that would be a setback. If it made it all the way that would be as much progress as you could get. Failing before MECO was less progress than I expected but still progress.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#503
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?

Elon says Starship launches will get down to $10M per launch within 2-3 years. But he also said we would have our CyberTrucks by now, so... ymmv.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-ro...

By comparison, Falcon Heavy costs about $62M per launch, but Gwynne Shotwell predicted they can shave 40% off that price tag when they start re-using heavies.

https://spacedotbiz.substack.com/p/is-starship-really-going-...

But Elon has supposedly said the TDC (total development cost) of the Starship is projected to be 2-10 billion. [I found this at the Daily Mail website, so take it with as large a grain of salt as you wish.]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11994755/Wha...

If it costs $10B to build one and $10M per launch and you get 10 launches per vehicle, that's $1.1B per launch if you amortize the development costs. But if it takes $2B to build one and $2M per launch and you get 10 launches, then it's only $220M per launch. But if you build five operational starships that each have 10 launches each, things start to get downright affordable.

So if the question is how much has SpaceX spent on the Starship to date? I don't know that's public info. If the question is how much will they spend on development, the answer is $2B-$10B (though that's from the Daily Mail.) If the question is how much will each launch cost (including amortizing development costs)? It could be as cheap as $42M. Or depending on how much of the $2.9B from NASA they're able to apply to previous development costs... who knows!? They could make $1.6M per launch as long as the GSA doesn't audit them too closely.

There's a myth in US government purchasing that competition drives costs down, and that's probably true for commodities. But Starship class super-heavy-launch vehicles aren't commodities. There's a TREMENDOUS amount of cost (both opportunity cost and dollars) associated with fiscal oversight of large projects. The hope has always been that when Blue Origin built something to compete, it would bring total costs down. I am skeptical.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#504
post #500
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> (Late Modern) Archaic spelling of complete.

I love how this comes back around and we've actually bastardized the original spelling haha.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#505
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…

That short interview with Cal Breed was the absolute best 60 seconds of video I have seen in quite a while. The raw footage should be re-edited into a longer video.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#507
post #486

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).

huh - TIL: https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-com3.htm

TL;DR: Compleat and Complete were originally different spellings for the same word. In UK, compleat is still just an archaic spelling. In USA, compleat is used as an adjective to refer specifically to having all the necessary elements or skills.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was great to see that they seemed unconcerned about 3 engines not lighting on launch. That's the sort of redundancy Starship is going to need to succeed in the way SpaceX are aiming for.

Well they already had a 1 engine out capability on F9, so scaling that ratio to Starship would be 3.6 engines, so it may be that it was in tolerance.

For roughly 10 seconds the telemetry reported 5 failed engines, then the last engine to fail re-ignited. But from the photos it looks like a total of 6 engines were off for longer period of time, 5 at the outer rim and 1 of the inner 3.

Thats 6 of 33 engines out, or 18.18%. Incredible it was still accelerating upwards

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#509
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…

I wonder how quickly they can iterate?

They have two more ships built and two under construction. I think the iteration time could be driven by the (1) condition of the launch pad (2) the cause of S24 destruction.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#510
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…

Same thing with NASA. There are countless mashups of NASA foibles. SpaceX is the same, just for profit.
Post reply on HN