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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#721

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #715
wkat4242 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting article. He doesn't really speak of a large hole in the ground and huge chunks of debris flying around though. More of the effects of the heat and sound energy on wildlife which is not quite as obvious. He raises some good points indeed, not sure why it was flagged at all.

Lately HN has been critical of dissent against certain ideas, with flagging and mass downvotes used to push certain narratives.

> expect that this comment will be massively downvoted and flagged

Well, yes. It’s in the guidelines: “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#723

Post by DuckFeathers »

sandworm101 wrote: post #198
mabbo wrote: 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…

>> People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space. Complicated high-energy systems have thousands of failure points. So to have any chance of success each failure point needs to be engineered below, by way of example, a 0.0001% chance of failure. That costs lots of money. But say one decides to accept more risk for less c…

Before the anti-Musk cats get too wet, Elon Musk has said, and I quote, "If we get far enough away from launch pad before something goes wrong, then I think I would consider that to be a success. Just don't blow up the pad.": https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/16/world/starship-spacex-lau...

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#724

Post by DiggyJohnson »

greenhearth wrote: post #574
outworlder wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that bothers me about this rapid unplanned disassembly development methodology is all the environmental damage that this thing is doing. It was bad enough blowing up next to a wildlife preserve, but now they are (with some degree of certainty) blowing it higher up and scattering fragments across a huge area. The rockets are not getting any smaller. > so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. Why…

This is the real legacy of propulsion flight. What is the end goal of this? Moon trips for rich people? Disgusting.

Have you no sense of wonder or exploration?

On what planet is the tiny amount of "pollution" from orbital rocket launches the "real legacy of propulsion flight"?

Great write-up on this topic: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#727

Post by jungturk »

pixl97 wrote: post #678
jungturk wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This parable elegantly explains how McDonald's came to offer the world's best hamburger.

Just remember that being best doesn't matter... being 'good enough' is. McD's never tried to build the best burger, they built one of the best supply chains in the world. SpaceX doesn't have to build the best rocket, in whatever that means, it just needs not to blow up and allow its cargo to reach space. If you build lots or burgers or lots of rockets its highly likely you'll reach and pass 'good enough'.

I was just poking that the parable ignores that the iterative side also requires an additional element - a target state to converge to over time, whatever that may be - repetition isn’t sufficient.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#728

Post by dividedbyzero »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #695
vannevar wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was not an expected possibility. Interestingly, this post predicting exactly this kind of damage was flagged on HN just days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590279 I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. They have a pretty good engineering team, and that aspect didn't involve an anomaly,…

> it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused If there is a material chance you won’t clear the tower, building an elaborate pad is overkill. I disagree that a new mount means months of delays—SpaceX has been building these faster than legacy operators.

They'll need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater though, that may be somewhat more work.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#729

Post by m4rtink »

outworlder wrote: post #481
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…

The thing that bothers me about this rapid unplanned disassembly development methodology is all the environmental damage that this thing is doing. It was bad enough blowing up next to a wildlife preserve, but now they are (with some degree of certainty) blowing it higher up and scattering fragments across a huge area. The rockets are not getting any smaller. > so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. Why…

A bunch of stainless steel rain is not that bad as pollution goes.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#730

Post by kortex »

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.

You're not prototyping rockets correctly if you don't expect in the back of your mind some chance of bombastic events. They are the epitome of "engineer it to within an inch of its expected safety margins for the mission".

Sure once you are going for human rated you want all those bugs figured out, but how do you find those safety margins without pushing up to and over them?

Post reply on HN