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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#651

Post by pixl97 »

ravenstine wrote: post #107
shadowgovt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense for prototypes. It's been slightly fewer decades since we've been doing consumer software. Does anybody expect version 1 to be bug free?

You're thinking about this like an engineer rather than a PR consultant or a journalist looking to write a hit piece on Musk. Even now, it's not hard to ask the somewhat specious question of how we can be 70+ years into aerospace tech and we still need our rockets to blow up.

If you're not blowing up at least some rockets you're overbuilding your rocket body hence wasting weight.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#652

Post by mkaic »

segasaturn wrote: post #237
ianai wrote: post #189

Let’s not move the goalposts. This company develops differently than historical aerospace. Success was defined as blowing up any point beyond the launch pad. It made it well past max-q which is the point of highest atmospheric stress on the rocket.

I'm wondering what the environmental impact of all of these exploding rockets is though. Surely they won't be able to fish every piece of the rocket out of the ocean, along with all of the fuel.

It's extremely, extremely tiny compared to the impact of the thousands of commercial airplane flights that happen every day. Plus, methalox burns very cleanly, second only to the much more dangerous and finicky hydrolox in terms of environmental friendliness.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#653

Post by pixl97 »

samus wrote: post #537
lazyasciiart wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t apply here because they have no opportunity to change anything after the mistake, right?

Well, yeah. In this sense, it's the second-worst thing that could have happened, with the worst outcome being injured or dead people. But they probably didn't expect such a bombastic finale so quickly.

exploding 4 minutes after launch is the second worst thing that could have happened?

I don't think you know much about rocket history, do you?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#654

Post by ChildOfChaos »

fzeroracer wrote: post #595
samwillis wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the two untested things were stage zero (all the new ground infrastructure) and stage one (booster). I think it's clear one of their biggest lessons is that the construction of the launch mount is wrong, and it REALY needs a flame diverter. Take a look at this photo: https://mobile.twitter.com/LabPadre/status/16490627841670307... That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was…

It's been wild to see people here try and spin this as a success story, because the rocket launch was missing things known to be required and the end result was as you mentioned. Massive destruction of the surrounding area which is going to require months of rebuilding and tons of $$$.

Because they achieved what they were trying to do? They said if it got 50 seconds into flight it was a success and it did. No Spin, they literally mentioned this objective before the flight, it's more wild for people to suggest that it wasn't despite it exceeding it's objectives.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#655

Post by superultra »

blake929 wrote: post #494

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? Mix…

I am generalizing but a lot of the space community and certainly a lot of SpaceX fans were deriding the several scrubbed launches of SLS/Artemis. I am not suggesting that it’s the exact same people, and the context for each vehicle is very different.

Nevertheless both the SpaceX and NASA approaches to this are valid engineering approaches.

Whether this particular failed launch is a long term success remains to be seen. If the next 5 Starship launches all explode, maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space flight.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#656

Post by 3-cheese-sundae »

Buttons840 wrote: post #555

[Spoiler ahead] Watched the live stream, I knew they had a bad problem when it appeared the engines were facing upwards. My time with KSP has taught me that no matter how well you think the flight is going, the rocket is still more than eager to return to earth given the chance. I wonder what actually caused the explosion? Did they scuttle it after a few flips? Did a tank break after a few flips and unplanned stresse…

If it starts pointing toward space you are a having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#657

Post by mkaic »

destitude wrote: post #338

People seem to have forgotten (or simply have no clue) how all the previous SpaceX projects worked. Also seem to be ignoring the fact they are by far the most successful launch company today so I think they know what they are doing.

Exactly! Falcon 9 is not only the most-launched rocket in history, it's also the most reliable rocket in history! And people got all caught up in sensationalism when Falcon 9 explosions were still common, too — I guess it doesn't drive ad revenue to wax on about the value of iterative design and rapid, frequent failures.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#658

Post by QuercusMax »

frutiger wrote: post #521
soperj wrote: 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).

There’s a tabletop game store in Manhattan called https://www.thecompleatstrategist.com/ .

Presumably named a la The Compleat Angler (a book on fishing from 1653).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Compleat_Angler

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#659

Post by mkaic »

rootusrootus wrote: post #590
pizlonator wrote: post #549

This write-up is so bad. It’s almost like a caricature of bad takes. If I wanted to show someone an example of why journalists suck at their jobs, I think this would be exhibit A. This rapid unscheduled disassembly was a huge success for SpaceX and everyone involved should be so proud. What a kick ass display of engineering prowess. That’s what the take should be, not “they tried to fly for an hour but it blew up aft…

That might be overselling it. They should be happy with the result, and ready to attack the problems discovered so the next flight might be more successful. And sure, proud that they got it off the ground, though as a fairly mature rocket company I'd have figured that was table stakes. But an actual kick-ass display of engineering prowess in recent memory was launching and deploying the Webb telescope.

IMO both Webb's deployment and this Starship test can both be kick-ass displays of engineering prowess. Kick-assery doesn't have to be exclusive to fully-completed deep-space missions!

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#660

Post by ggreer »

Retric wrote: post #448
nunuvit wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. I've worked in "old space" and the fundamental problem is that they can't afford to experiment. SpaceX has the option to physically test an idea that's holding them up before investing in fully bringing it up to production quality, only to have to redo all that work next iteration. That's why they can make new things and do it cheaper and faster.

Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Rather than looking at failure as a constant rate you need to consider these numbers change with every flight. Initially major design flaws are identified and workers become more skilled at a process, eventually new errors creep in etc etc. They have greatly benefited from being able to use modern tools and seen where other systems f…

> Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system.

Falcon 9 has the record for most consecutive successful orbital launches. Their last failure was AMOS-6 in September of 2016. Since then they've had 189 successful launches in a row.[1] In that same time Soyuz has had 113 launches with 3 failures. Soyuz's longest success streak was 100 launches from 1983 to 1986.[2] The US's Delta II had 100 consecutive successes from 1997 to 2018, though it has since been retired. A total of 155 Delta IIs were launched with 2 failures.

Falcon 9's current successful landing streak of 110 missions exceeds the competition's best launch streak. By any metric one can measure, SpaceX has the most reliable rocket.

1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... for the list of launches and outcomes.

2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-roc...

Post reply on HN