3 ms·

Not sure if I understand what's wrong with this. "Once starship prototypes stop exploding" sounds to me just like "once experimental software stops crashing". W

Not sure if I understand what's wrong with this. "Once starship prototypes stop exploding" sounds to me just like "once experimental software stops crashing". Well, experiments are there to find problems and correct them; we cannot predict or emulate what we don't know; if I was an engineer I would absolutely want a prototype starship to tell me there's something wrong, even by exploding, before real people jumps in for a real flight.

kortex 6y ago
Exactly. This is precisely the time for "move fast, break things". They have comfy traffic with their Falcon like, and can (and should) be going full-Kerbal with Starship as long as they can afford to. Especially with all the new techniques they are experimenting with.
justapassenger 6y ago
There’s a lot experimental software that never stops crashing.
caiobegotti 6y ago
Considering the whole content of the article I'm sure this is exactly what they also tried to mean. Also, "once starship prototypes are done exploding" means a huge step because they can then focus totally on making things to scale and even higher/better/faster, it sounds like a great safety and engineering milestone and I didn't read it as a derogatory thing at all, it's just how rockets are... full of explosive fuel.
paxys 6y ago
Who says there is something wrong with this?
PopeDotNinja 6y ago
Personally I’d be concerned if Starship(s) had never exploded. It wouldn’t surprise me with if Blue Origin collapses after a while of having a good record because it has a couple crashes & can’t handle the pressure.
jhpriestley 6y ago
I am reminded of Feynman's critique of the space shuttle engine program... "The engine was designed and put together all at once with relatively little detailed preliminary study of the material and components. Then when troubles are found in the bearings, turbine blades, coolant pipes, etc., it is more expensive and difficult to discover the causes and make changes. For example, cracks have been found in the turbine blades of the high pressure oxygen turbopump. Are they caused by flaws in the material, the effect of the oxygen atmosphere on the properties of the material, the thermal stresses of startup or shutdown, the vibration and stresses of steady running, or mainly at some resonance at certain speeds, etc.? How long can we run from crack initiation to crack failure, and how does this depend on power level? Using the completed engine as a test bed to resolve such questions is extremely expensive. One does not wish to lose an entire engine in order to find out where and how failure occurs. Yet, an accurate knowledge of this information is essential to acquire a confidence in the engine reliability in use. Without detailed understanding, confidence can not be attained. "A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without a redesign of the entire engine."

kortex 6y ago

Exactly. This is precisely the time for "move fast, break things". They have comfy traffic with their Falcon like, and can (and should) be going full-Kerbal with Starship as long as they can afford to. Especially with all the new techniques they are experimenting with.

justapassenger 6y ago

There’s a lot experimental software that never stops crashing.

caiobegotti 6y ago

Considering the whole content of the article I'm sure this is exactly what they also tried to mean. Also, "once starship prototypes are done exploding" means a huge step because they can then focus totally on making things to scale and even higher/better/faster, it sounds like a great safety and engineering milestone and I didn't read it as a derogatory thing at all, it's just how rockets are... full of explosive fuel.

paxys 6y ago

Who says there is something wrong with this?

PopeDotNinja 6y ago

Personally I’d be concerned if Starship(s) had never exploded. It wouldn’t surprise me with if Blue Origin collapses after a while of having a good record because it has a couple crashes & can’t handle the pressure.

jhpriestley 6y ago

I am reminded of Feynman's critique of the space shuttle engine program... "The engine was designed and put together all at once with relatively little detailed preliminary study of the material and components. Then when troubles are found in the bearings, turbine blades, coolant pipes, etc., it is more expensive and difficult to discover the causes and make changes. For example, cracks have been found in the turbine blades of the high pressure oxygen turbopump. Are they caused by flaws in the material, the effect of the oxygen atmosphere on the properties of the material, the thermal stresses of startup or shutdown, the vibration and stresses of steady running, or mainly at some resonance at certain speeds, etc.? How long can we run from crack initiation to crack failure, and how does this depend on power level? Using the completed engine as a test bed to resolve such questions is extremely expensive. One does not wish to lose an entire engine in order to find out where and how failure occurs. Yet, an accurate knowledge of this information is essential to acquire a confidence in the engine reliability in use. Without detailed understanding, confidence can not be attained. "A further disadvantage of the top-down method is that, if an understanding of a fault is obtained, a simple fix, such as a new shape for the turbine housing, may be impossible to implement without a redesign of the entire engine."