Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 363 posts

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#61

Post by ndr »

ballenf wrote: post #53
stetrain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although it was stated before the flight that they were intentionally flying with some heat tiles removed and with a more aggressive profile to test some outer limits.

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas. I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

Why would they need to care about narrative at this point?

It's privately own, might as well learn as much as possible with each dollar spent.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#62

Post by moralestapia »

Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

This guy ... MEGA lmao.

To the contrary, I am fascinated by what SpaceX has accomplished so far. I wouldn't just say they "nailed it" they completely blew past all expectations I had.

"Why didn't just get it right on their first test", really? People can't even get a regex right the first time.

Are you aware of the size of this rocket? That it reached orbit? That it hovered over the ocean instead of just crashing into it? That it came back into a point with such precision that a buoy with a camera was already waiting for it? From orbit (that its 30,000km/h and 150km high)?

Your comment is just ridiculous.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#63

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

fhd2 wrote: post #54
ekianjo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had virtually infinite budget at the time. SpaceX is much, much cheaper.

Is it though? I'm not knowledgeable on this at all, but it _seems_ like Space X is blowing up a lot more expensive equipment compared to NASA back in the space race days. Genuinely curious how it compares and how true my outsider impression is.

Not to mention the mountain of prior art to work off of...

It's way harder to do it the first time.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#64

Post by GeekyBear »

gtirloni wrote: post #48
ekianjo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fin They specifically said they're testing lighter fins to see how much they would hold. Let's not invent problems when it's an experiment that was clearly stated.

Is it common to plan an explosion to test how something will react in these launches? Honest question, I know nothing about rockets. In SRE, we have chaos engineering so I'm wondering if it's the same concept.

It's very common for extremely hot metal pressure tanks to rupture when plunged into water.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#65

Post by enraged_camel »

Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

I view it differently. The ship not only survived, but also accomplished all of its mission objectives despite those issues. What this shows is that it has remarkable resilience, which is a really important considering the types of forces it will be subject to during future missions.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#66

Post by NitpickLawyer »

ballenf wrote: post #53
stetrain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although it was stated before the flight that they were intentionally flying with some heat tiles removed and with a more aggressive profile to test some outer limits.

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas. I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. What matters is executing on your vision / goals. And they're doing that.

The fact that they're bringing in loads of cash from Starlink surely helps. They haven't had the need to raise money in a while, now.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#67

Post by nerdjon »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #46
nerdjon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I am finding myself wrestling with a lot right now. On the one hand I am a major space nerd and I see the value of what SpaceX is doing. Especially with it really seeming like no one is anywhere near their level. What kind of scientific advancements will be possible once this thing can be used normally and launches like this become commonplace. But at the same time it is impossible to ignore the Elo…

“a satellite that monitors climate change” - really you think Elon Musk is not gonna fly satellites with instruments on them that point downwards?

I am stating an example due to the current political discourse over climate change not that it would be something they specifically would not do.

My point with stating it, is it is not unreasonable to ask the question if we are reliant on a company with someone like Elon owning it is what the company will and will not fly going to be dependent on politics.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#68

Post by bilsbie »

nerdjon wrote: post #31
enraged_camel wrote: post #20

Incredible achievement, but what is more incredible is how many people (including almost all of my friends circle) have started rooting for SpaceX to fail due to the shenanigans of its founder. I think as a culture we've lost the ability to compartmentalize. We should be able to criticize and even despise the head of a company, and at the same time celebrate when the intelligence and hard work of the countless smart…

This is something I am finding myself wrestling with a lot right now. On the one hand I am a major space nerd and I see the value of what SpaceX is doing. Especially with it really seeming like no one is anywhere near their level. What kind of scientific advancements will be possible once this thing can be used normally and launches like this become commonplace. But at the same time it is impossible to ignore the Elo…

What if the guy who built the world’s best rocket from scratch, who popularized EVs and brought self-driving tech to the masses, who built brain computer interfaces, dug tunnels, started OpenAI and PayPal…

What if he’s not an idiot?

What if we should actually be listening to what this guy says and considering it?

What if he has the same ability to see what nobody else can see early on in politics…

As he’s shown across the rest of his career?

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#69

Post by throwawaymaths »

fhd2 wrote: post #54
ekianjo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had virtually infinite budget at the time. SpaceX is much, much cheaper.

Is it though? I'm not knowledgeable on this at all, but it _seems_ like Space X is blowing up a lot more expensive equipment compared to NASA back in the space race days. Genuinely curious how it compares and how true my outsider impression is.

saturn v was about 30B in 2025 dollars. starship has cost on the order of 5B so far.

raptor engines are designed to be cost efficient, as is the rolled steel? that is used for the fuselage

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#70

Post by mjamesaustin »

fhd2 wrote: post #54
ekianjo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had virtually infinite budget at the time. SpaceX is much, much cheaper.

Is it though? I'm not knowledgeable on this at all, but it _seems_ like Space X is blowing up a lot more expensive equipment compared to NASA back in the space race days. Genuinely curious how it compares and how true my outsider impression is.

They can spend numerous ships testing because the cost is dramatically lower per ship.

As with any manufactured item, high volume and iterative design improves the production process and finished product.

Post reply on HN