Wait, how come I can’t find the jokes about starship going up in smoke on 4/20? Are they being moderated away?
SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#942Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don’t understand why that post was flagged so quickly.
> SpaceX's Texas Rocket Is Going to Cause a Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks It might be the over-the-top title didn't do it any favors. It's in a gray zone between truth and click bait.
The title is a completely reasonable and accurate reflection of the opinions that the author presents. If there’s disagreement about the opinions, that’s what discussion is for. I think this kind of thing is indicative of hn being on a bit of a downward slide.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#943What's really dreading for me, is that the first launch showed, that the problem of synchronous work of many engines, which doomed N1[0], was not solved. SpaceX knew about it from the start and placed it's bet on 50 years of technological advances. I don't want to think about the scenario where that bet is lost. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
Falcon Heavy has 27 engines, Starship 33. Its not that different. And if anything Starship has a simpler engine configuration. This is not some unsolvable problem.
Falcon Heavy has 3 packs of 9 engines, each pack is thoroughly tested. They can treat the whole package as 3 sources of thrust, manipulating them as a one (which they actually do). Every booster has its own fuel tanks, lines and so on.
Also, I don't remember a single engine failure during Falcon Heavy launches. Today we had 8 (?) of them.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Fail fast" applies to more than just software. Yes, but let's not take the analogy too far. For people who work in safety-critical design (including software), it takes a different mindset than what is often prevalent in silicon valley. When the stakes are high, you don't really want to "move fast and break things". You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payloa…
I agree with everything in your comment. One thing I've wondered about re space exploration though is how we reconcile what I think is pretty much universal acknowledgement that we have to do everything possible to avoid loss of life with the inherent danger of space travel, and the "drag" that a zero-tolerance safety focus can have on culture. Put another way, what would global exploration have looked like if sailor…
I don't know what you're talking about. The Space Shuttle blew up twice, killed too many people out of sheer incompetence. And it flew again both times. Both times because NASA needed the vehicle to deliver on its promises. The Space Shuttle should never have flown after Columbia was lost. But it did, because NASA decided to live with the risks.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#945Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good analysis of the goals of this test. That said, the failure was interesting to me. In the SpaceX feed they were waiting for the second stage to separate and light, and it didn't do either. So first question is why didn't it separate? I think that is the relevant one because I would expect them to have interlocks that would prevent the second stage from starting up if it were still attached to the booster. The int…
In the SpaceX feed they were waiting for the second stage to separate and light, and it didn't do either. So first question is why didn't it separate? T+00:16 - Shortly after liftoff, when the engine graphic first appears, three engines were out. https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2721 T+00:28 - Sparks are seen in the engine exhaust and some flashes. https://youtu.be/-1wcilQ58hI?t=2733 T+00:40 - A fourth engine is marked…
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
I loved the fact that in the video, the staff clapped when the thing exploded... Where in the past, people would be like "OH NO!!" -- but the crew knew how much data they got out of that launch. I wonder how stripped down the starship was though in an effort to save costs in the event such as this RUD. I would love a piece of the shrapnel from the exploded device though... Hopefully they get those pieces and auction…
I suspect they were told "if we get off the ground, it's a success." Elon's been saying similar things over the last week.
>"if we get off the ground, it's a success."
I've have my own version of this more times than I can count.
For me, I run a trading firm and when I started it was "if we can survive the day without losing a ton of money, its a win." I was happy if the positions even made it to the exchange the way we wanted, haha.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#947Earlier 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…
>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,…
This is kind of dumb. SpaceX not only was aware of the damage that would likely be caused, but there are already steel pieces of a flame diverter that arrived a couple of weeks ago at Starbase:
https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560...
They intentionally chose not to install it yet to accelerate the launch (it has been two years without flight testing, they need more data and this booster needed to be gone). It's a perfectly fine decision, it just means more repair after this inaugural flight than normal. If the cost of the repair is less than the cost of delay (and delay impacts Starlink, various payload customers, and especially NASA's Artemis program), then you're a poor manager if you choose delay.
The media have largely been completely ignorant about this kind of testing. Exception being those who have space as their main beat, like Space News, etc. Everyone in the space industry pretty much understands the concept of a test regime that has a high probability of failure. They understand that it's about an order of magnitude cheaper and about 3 times faster than the usual defense contractor "failure is not an option" approach. That's why you had such supportive comments from the NASA Administrator and anyone else who is actually in this industry.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#948Initially 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…
> SpaceX did the X, we got max Q.
What does this mean?
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#949Initially 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…
> SpaceX did the X, we got max Q. What does this mean?
max Q is the point of largest aerodynamic load during a launch/flight.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#950Earlier 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,…
This is kind of dumb. SpaceX not only was aware of the damage that would likely be caused, but there are already steel pieces of a flame diverter that arrived a couple of weeks ago at Starbase: https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560... They intentionally chose not to install it yet to accelerate the launch (it has been two years without flight testing, they need more data and this booster needed…
It sounded like Elon also put a decent probability on the rocket exploding on the pad. In that case, the flame diverter would likely have been destroyed anyway.