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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#961

Post by edgyquant »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #654
fzeroracer wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I listened to Musk give a QA about this last week before the initial launch date. He very clearly defined success as reaching orbit, and stated that success wasn’t likely.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#962

Post by hermitdev »

vannevar wrote: post #575
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…

>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,…

If nothing else, Musk has a lot more entertaining method of boring tunnels now than those slow tunnel boring machines.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#963

Post by dbg31415 »

Having everyone in the video cheer when it blew up was weird to me.

I guess it’s progress... but feels like catastrophic failure isn’t really something to cheer.

Just reminds me of Challenger blowing up. Y’know? Not a good feeling to watch these things explode.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#964

Post by uguuo_o »

bob1029 wrote: post #425
mhandley wrote: post #332

I'm really interested to see the hole it dug under the launch mount. The NASA SpaceFlight van took a direct hit from a fast moving chunk of concrete. https://twitter.com/JerryPikePhoto/status/164905272269878477... https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649053476276797440 Edit: it really did dig a crater (this was flat concrete under the pad before): https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649062784167030785

I wonder if this was expected or not. This video immediately comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMbUeO4iGhY (Why SpaceX Cares about Concrete) This probably explains why some of the engines didn't make it off the pad. That is some incredible damage.

I have done work for NASA on this problem through SBIRs. The risks have been known for a long time, and to my team the extent of the damage was not surprising. NASA/SpaceX just don't have the computational tools to assess these types of risks at this time.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#965

Post by bmitc »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #757
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,…

> I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. "SpaceX" isn't a unified mind. It's not even a hivemind, no company is. We keep saying "company knew about X", but it's a such a mischaracterization of how companies, or any group of humans, work. Yes, some people in the company might have known it, but for various reasons, be it poor communication, mistaken assumptions, willful igno…

My issue with this take is that companies have used leverage and lobbying to get to define when a company isn't a single entity and when it is not, always in their advantage. For example, a company is involved in a human death: the company is suddenly not a single entity and is instead simply part of this complex system of moving parts out of which emerged a human death. As another example, a corporation wants to donate to politicians (for "reasons"): the company is suddenly a single entity and even individual (!) who has constitutional rights to political donations.

Companies flip flop back and forth between them being a collective and individual at will and to their singular benefit.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#966

Post by bmitc »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #639
almost_usual wrote: post #598

Earlier 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.

A 10x-100x increase in sound beyond approved levels, intentionally skipping or lobbying to skip approvals, ignoring environmental impact, and using designs as if they were approved when it was really earlier, much different versions are not examples of gray areas.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#967

Post by bmitc »

vannevar wrote: post #575
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…

>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,…

Thanks for posting that link. I found the article informative and actually well-written and driven by evidence and examples.

It is really striking to me how people are willing to throw the environment under the proverbial bus and literal rocket in order to further some false idea of improving humanity. We're actively killing a live planet, currently the only planet known to be able to house human and life in general for that matter, to reach a dead planet on the whims and wishes of paper billionaires.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#968

Post by rurban »

Bullshit article.

It talks about the missing engines (I saw 6 of 33 not igniting), causing the failure, whilst we saw the seperation to fail in 3 180° attempts. A minor thrust loss cannot explain the seperation failure. Also the starship raptors didnt ignite at all. Also the huge hole at the launch site could have been avoided.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#969

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

bmitc wrote: post #967
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,…

Thanks for posting that link. I found the article informative and actually well-written and driven by evidence and examples. It is really striking to me how people are willing to throw the environment under the proverbial bus and literal rocket in order to further some false idea of improving humanity. We're actively killing a live planet, currently the only planet known to be able to house human and life in general…

Maybe we could get minerals and stuff from space instead of digging up nature

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#970

Post by fwlr »

intrasight wrote: post #956
fwlr wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plan for Starship’s separation from the Super Heavy booster stage does include a 180 degree flip!

But doesn't that result in Starship pointing in the wrong direction after separation? I get that it's the right direction for the booster. Also a flip seems much more risky than the well-understood current separation mechanisms.

I don’t know the reasons for it, all I know is that the first part of the flip is intentional and the rest happened because stage separation failed.

I have heard some theories on why they do this. One is that it gets around the need for “ullage thrusters”, independent thrusters that fire early to provide initial momentum forcing the fuel to gather at one end of the tank to provide full uninterrupted flow to main thrusters. Another theory I’ve heard is that it’s an attempt to develop a stage separation mechanism that doesn’t require consumables like explosive bolts or heavy special-purpose equipment like hydraulic pushers. Both seem plausible to me given the goal of a truly re-usable rocket; the vision seems to be that you literally just fill up the gas tank and go again, you don’t have to refuel independent thrusters or install a new explosive decoupler.

Post reply on HN