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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#991

Post by panick21_ »

justin66 wrote: post #951
panick21_ wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think SpaceX rockets don't have a traditional range safety officer anymore. That function was replaced by software. I suspect the software has certain conditions that will cause destruction. But it might also have been manual intervention.

They might or might not be permitted by the FAA to do some unconventional manning of that role when they fly out of BFE, Texas. (but to what end?) I'm sure they do things traditionally when their rockets fly from NASA or Space Force facilities.

Äh sorry but you are simply wrong. SpaceX was the first company to get certification to not have 'guy with button' anymore and have certified hardware on board that this job. This was vital part of how they decreased labor cost and increases launch rate.

As far as I know SpaceX has not launched in the traditional way since Falcon 1 and I am sure that they would never launch Starship that way.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#992

Post by PaulHoule »

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…

NASA did so many studies where they tried to put together Space Shuttle parts to make ‘low cost’ rockets (saving development expenses) but whatever they came up with was terribly expensive since those parts were expensive and that didn’t matter if it was a rocket with a cluster of 4 SSMEs or a rocket that strapped on 3 of the solid rocker booster.

You’d think NASA would have read their own studies and given up rather than proceed on the predictable Artemis boondoggle.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#993

Post by cratermoon »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #761
cratermoon wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the author was closer to the truth that HN gave him credit for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8

I dont think it was close to the truth at all. They predict shattered glass,damaged foundations of beachside homes, and people scarred for life by the launch. This was hyperbolic fearmongering. The actual launch was very close to baseline expectations. The lack of launch pad flame channels was common knowlegle, and no great insight. This entire blog is dedicated to environmental complants about SpaceX operations. If…

Are you still of the opinion that the article was not close to the truth at all? Windows were shattered, the highway next to the facility was damaged and is still closed, Port Isabel was showered with dust and debris, and more.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#994

Post by justin66 »

panick21_ wrote: post #991
justin66 wrote: post #951

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might or might not be permitted by the FAA to do some unconventional manning of that role when they fly out of BFE, Texas. (but to what end?) I'm sure they do things traditionally when their rockets fly from NASA or Space Force facilities.

Äh sorry but you are simply wrong. SpaceX was the first company to get certification to not have 'guy with button' anymore and have certified hardware on board that this job. This was vital part of how they decreased labor cost and increases launch rate. As far as I know SpaceX has not launched in the traditional way since Falcon 1 and I am sure that they would never launch Starship that way.

That's intriguing. Where can we read more about this?

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#995

Post by shthed »

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

https://twitter.com/unrocket/status/1649425500526329863

Better view of the hole and damage to the launch mount

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#996

Post by mystertea »

Call this a hot take, but it seems news media are painting a disingenuous picture with this incident, casting it in the light of a failure when it clearly was not one; the goal was only to get the rocket to clear the launch pad, as stated in the video.

The article even states (a few paragraphs down) how Musk said not blowing up the launch pad would be a win, and quotes industry experts on how the launch signified good progress. Yet even so, the title and attempted takeaway is FAILURE, ROCKET EXPLODES MINUTES AFTER LAUNCH.

You can even identity little attempts to cast further dispersion around the positive news, to throw the lemmings off the scent: small business owner's windows broke gasp; RICH people are already booking tickets (see, this isn't for you, average Joe, you're excluded); A little girl CRIED on seeing the launch, etc etc.

This is not journalism; this is maybe 40% news and 60% propaganda. Disgusting how blatant it is, and how so many (ostensibly) intelligent people fall for it.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#997

Post by inglor_cz »

verdverm wrote: post #794
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…

I'm not sure they reached the Max Q they were after. Sure the announcer said those words, but given how many engines were out very early, they were not likely at the intended altitude or speed. You can see when the call out Max Q, the vehicle is already travelling at an angle, not in line with the trajectory. You can also hear a time gap between when the announcer says "max q" at the intended time and when control sa…

They certainly reached some Max Q, given that Q is bounded continuous function on a finite interval.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#998

Post by fivestarman »

recursive wrote: post #707
fivestarman wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

starship will always be a failure built on lies. just youtube 'starship debunked'.

I searched the phrase on youtube. It's mostly stuff about this launch. You'll need to be more specific.

common sense skeptic

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#999

Post by intrasight »

fwlr wrote: post #970
intrasight wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thru…

Now it makes sense to me. Explosive decouplers and reusable components are somewhat incompatible.

Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas

#1000

Post by panick21_ »

superultra wrote: post #986
panick21_ wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years and another 10 billion $ on Starship. It would still be far superior to SLS. > maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space f…

> NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. You're leaning on a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions, right? Do we even know how much a Starship launch costs? The only cost I can find is Musk saying they'd dropped $2-3B, but that was back in 2…

> You're leaning on a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions, right?

We know how much SLS cost in a lot of detail. Also remember, SLS development, the 20 billion is only to first launch to get to 1B they will likely drop another 10 billion or so and it will likely take until 2030.

We don't know about Starship, but it is far, far less. SpaceX could absolutly not spend 5 billion $ a year on the program.

And the complexity of Starship is in a different dimension.

So Starship for a fact is orders of magnitude cheaper then SLS and orders of magnitude more complex.

Post reply on HN