Live data from Hacker News

Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

twitter.com

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#501
post #199

It's difficult to overstate how important the milestone of catching the booster is. Now we have a reusable rocket an order of magnitude larger than anything we've had before, and the cost of kg to orbit just nosedived.

Second stage reuse seems the far more challenging problem. Other companies should have reusable boosters soon but if significant amounts of Starship continue to ablate on the way down they could be faced with a disposable Starship competing with smaller and cheaper second stages that are well sized for typical payloads. We already knew boosters can be flown back to launch sites reliably with high accuracy. We don't k…

I found Jeff’s Bezos interview with everyday astronaut really illuminating on this topic.

Supposedly they’re working on both a reusable and cost optimised non-reusable second stage at the same time. And they don’t really know yet which one will end up being cheaper.

You also see this kind of thinking with Rocket Labs neutron rocket. Where they focus on making the reusable booster do more, while making the second stage smaller, cheaper and simpler.

I think if it wasn’t for the rocket engine this wouldn’t be a question at all. The tank doesn’t have much value. It’s just a thin shell and probably a fraction of the cost of the fuel.

So I’m thinking, perhaps the optimal solution is something like this: the bottom part of the second stage with the engines separates, and a small engine and fuel tanks places the engines in a stable orbit. The tank itself is deorbited and burns up.

At some point later something like the Starship collects several second stage engines and deorbits them safely to be reused.

Or perhaps just the engines can be immediately deorbited with an inflatable heat shield and parachutes.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#502
post #183
post #23

Nothing could have prepared me for how that catch looked. I was sure the rocket was careening into the tower at the last second before it straightened out. The control algorithms must be incredible for the landing system to work within those small tolerances.

MIMO and nonlinear control theories are probably some of the hardest topics in all of engineering. SpaceX control system also has to compensate for the fuel moving inside their rockets so the control algorithms probably involve some kind of fast numerical fluid simulation. Another interesting thing SpaceX is doing is to use consumer-grade chips in triple redundancy configurations instead of using $100,000+ radiation-…

People don't realize how powerful applied math (especially in the areas you've mentioned) has become. Same tools can be applied to people in the ad tech/social media.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do this every launch unfortunately. Youtube seems completely inept at stopping them. They make enough money to hire hundreds of thousands of fake accounts to subscribe.

Musk choosing to abandon YouTube to push his other company didn’t help.

These are reruns.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#504
post #323
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIMO and nonlinear control theories are probably some of the hardest topics in all of engineering. SpaceX control system also has to compensate for the fuel moving inside their rockets so the control algorithms probably involve some kind of fast numerical fluid simulation. Another interesting thing SpaceX is doing is to use consumer-grade chips in triple redundancy configurations instead of using $100,000+ radiation-…

> Another interesting thing SpaceX is doing is to use consumer-grade chips in triple redundancy configurations instead of using $100,000+ radiation-hardened aerospace/defense grade chips. This has been known in the high availability and safety systems industry for a while and a good book to learn these reliability engineering techniques is "Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems". The book is available on amaz…

Thank you very much for the reference!

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#505
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, the booster was going about 1250 km/h when it started its landing burn, it relied purely on drag to get it slowed down to that speed. Going by the telemetry of the seconds before the landing burn and noting the speed vs time, it seems drag was around 40 m/s^2 when it was going at around 3000 km/h. Since drag depends on velocity squared though, it had reduced to just above 10 m/s^2 just before the engines l…

"... Super Heavy[1] has 3400000 kg of fuel at launch ..." So, 34M kg of fuel has to be burned (in this booster alone) to facilitate a flight ... and I see that the propellant is CH4 / LOX[1]. Burning methane is much, much better than simply releasing methane but the release becomes CO2 instead ... What is the back-of-the-envelope conversion of 34M kg CH4 vs., for instance, 34M kg of kerosene/JP ? [1] https://en.wikip…

3.4 million, not 34 million. And that includes the weight of the liquid oxygen, which is heavier than the methane.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#507

Couldn't watch the livestream on X because it was erroring out. We live in a world where you can't stream a video or Chromecast on X but you can catch a damn rocket...

I wouldn't bother with X. There were dozens of YouTube channels with the live feed.

Live scams too.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive question: I obviously expect there to be flames from the engines, but there were flames on the lower sides for quite a while after the catch – is that expected?

It is common for Starship prototypes to have uncontrolled fires, but it is obviously not a good thing. For example, prototype number 10 exploded 8 minutes after landing [1] because of a seemingly insignificant fire at the bottom. After today's flight there was a long lasting fire in the engine section, with occasional flaming pieces of plumbing raining down from the rocket. Examining the aftermath should help SpaceX…

This highlights another thing I love about watching SpaceX's unprecedented rate of progress. They're managing the complex balance of risk, learning, time and budget extremely well. I'm not an expert in the relevant domains but even I've noticed and appreciated that the typical SpaceX development test always manages to get big chunks of new data, while still having some notable things not quite working.

It's an object lesson in rapid engineering development. If everything goes perfectly in a development test, it's a sign you're not moving fast enough (meaning not taking enough risk per increment to maximize learning). As valuable as Falcon, Starlink and Starship are, the biggest near-term value of SpaceX may be providing such a clear demonstration of well-executed "fail fast, learn fast" engineering that even politicians and bureaucrats can understand it.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#510
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA needs more funding at this point. They're not staffed for the rate of launch requests which commercial space has grown too.

perhaps we need less thorough reviews

Not sure why this is downvoted.

Our risk-to-regulatory oversight cost benefit analysis seems extremely off - we overregulate small things that do not have large-scale meaningful impact while basically grandfather in stuff like depleting the Great Salt Lake, coal emissions, etc. which have vastly less regulatory $ spend per environmental impact.

Ideally, if we could quantify all environmental impacts into a single number (ie. CO2 emissions but also wildlife impact, etc.), the $/impact spent across different fields would be equal.

Currently, however, we are likely spending 100x+ on a per-impact basis on SpaceX regulation.

Post reply on HN