7 ms·

Starship SN9 damaged in an accident in the high-bay

43 points by _Microft 6y ago

_Microft 6y ago
The sad thing is that SN9 was meant to be moved to the launch pad on monday next week already. This is pretty certainly not going to happen as one of the rear flaps is damaged. Maybe assessing and fixing the damage would not even be worth it since SN10 and successors are being built right now? (Parts belonging to prototypes up to SN16 have been spotted by a local SpaceX fan already.)
- jcheng 6y ago
  > Maybe assessing and fixing the damage would not even be worth it since SN10 and successors are being built right now? Treat your starships like cattle, not pets!
  - nerpderp82 6y ago
    Fly it anyway and do a DiRT (pun intended).
- Laremere 6y ago
  Likely the most valuable parts are any engines that were mounted. (Have they mounted the engines?) My guess is that if they have a current surplus of engines, they'll try a fix and attempt to get data out of sn9, even if success chance is low. If they have more pressure vessels than engines for those pressure vessels, then I doubt sn9 will fly. Either way, one of the larger goals of these early prototypes is to iterate on how to make the starship quickly and inexpensively, so I doubt it's a total waste even if it doesn't fly.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
How do accidents like this even happen at an established company? That sort of stuff indicates a worrying proclivity to cut corners.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dgrin91 6y ago
  All of this work is designed to be highly iterative, (relatively) low cost prototyping. Cutting corners is exactly what they are trying to do. If you hadn't seen before, until SN8 they were flying this thing without a nose cone. Cutting corners here is OK. The point is to find the mistakes. Better to find these issues now than to be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19#Damage_during_manufacture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19#Damage_during_manufact...
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Cutting corners here is OK No, it's not. Incidents like this tell a lot about internal culture. Things in highbays aren't supposed to fall over just like that, that sort of accident could have cost a life and certainly has lost the company money and set it back a few months. Safety is very clearly an afterthought at the Starship site. You can't have that in rocketry. They want to go to Mars and can't even get out of the assembly building in one piece! Starship is basic engineering in metal. The thing sat there and just fell over. There wasn't even any kind of load on it. That takes some effort!
    - jcims 6y ago
      I tend to agree with you, and that was definitely my first thought. However we don’t know what was going on when this happened. If it was just sitting on the stand and fell over that’s a problem, but they were clearly getting ready to move it and may have been transitioning to a set up where they could lift it. It’s possible (albeit unlikely) that this was a risk that they had calculated and put some countermeasures into place for. They just dropped one of these out of the sky from 8 miles up, but since the risk was managed in a very visible way it generally wasn’t considered a safety issue.
    - bogwog 6y ago
      This is a prototype during R&D. It's like when you press F5 and you get a compiler error because you accidentally used `.` when you should've used `->` to access a member function. Does this tell a lot about your abilities as a programmer? Do you hide this incident from your boss so that he doesn't realize you're a fraud? Should you tell your customers about this? It'll be much worse if they hear about it from someone else. The difference between `.` and `->` is basic engineering! You're trying to ship a product, but you can't even get out of the compiler in one piece!
bpodgursky 6y ago
Stainless steel. It'll buff out.
- space_ghost 6y ago
  Is it really clad in stainless steel? Seems like there would be lighter materials that would serve that role.
  - davidivadavid 6y ago
    There are lighter materials but apparently they're more expensive and harder to work with, so steel ended up winning the cost/benefit analysis. There's been ample discussion about that when they originally started talking about it, e.g. https://www.space.com/43101-elon-musk-explains-stainless-steel-starship.html https://www.space.com/43101-elon-musk-explains-stainless-ste...
    - bombcar 6y ago
      I think the real reason is Elon Musk wants Buck Rogers style spaceships and will do whatever necessary to get there.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Probably not, SpaceX invested a lot of time and effort into composite tanks before giving that up.
      - bryanlarsen 6y ago
        Having product that appeals to his not-so-hidden inner thirteen year old boy is definitely a motivation for Elon Musk. Exhibit A: cybertruck. Actually getting to Mars is a higher priority, though.
        nerpderp82 6y ago
        Exhibit A', flame thrower.
scott31 6y ago
The other driver's insurance should pay for it
Technically 6y ago
Why does SpaceX "news" get so much visibility on this forum? It feels like people have a lot of emotion invested in a company. That cannot be good for your mental health.
hikerclimber 6y ago
good.
nikolay 6y ago
I won't comment on this one as anything negative about SpaceX gets huge downvote! I'm not sure what kind of engineering mentality goes after people who don't share their fanboism! On my previous comment on the Elon Musk comment regarding SN8's "success", every single comment I've made got -4 rating! Silencing people with downvoting them massively is the last thing I'd expect from self-respected engineering minds! Well, I just commented! Feel free to downvote!
- dmix 6y ago
  > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nikolay 6y ago
    It's a guideline, not a mandate.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  I generally agree that these discussions are tedious because of fanboys, but consider this: If SpaceX fans/employees didn't have an unreasonable amount of optimism, then SpaceX never would have put anything into orbit in the first place. If they weren't such fanatics, they would have given up 15 years ago before even trying.
  - nikolay 6y ago
    They shouldn't dogpile to downvote though! Instead, they should provide meaningful comments.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    SpaceX employees are paid. This has more to do with cheap capital than optimism.
- seastonATccs 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/e3h6es6zh1c?t=194 https://youtu.be/e3h6es6zh1c?t=194
dmix 6y ago
I know this is probably old hat by now but that thing looks massive with that person at the bottom for scale, especially considering it's only the upper stage.
ksaj 6y ago
Some see this as a complete failure, but it does also provide input into the practices that led up to and caused the accident. Rocketry is not limited to the activity between the launch and landing pads. This is precisely the reason there are so many tests - there WILL be failures along the way. There are at least 7 more such tests in the queue already.

43 points by _Microft 6y ago

The sad thing is that SN9 was meant to be moved to the launch pad on monday next week already. This is pretty certainly not going to happen as one of the rear flaps is damaged. Maybe assessing and fixing the damage would not even be worth it since SN10 and successors are being built right now? (Parts belonging to prototypes up to SN16 have been spotted by a local SpaceX fan already.)

jcheng 6y ago
> Maybe assessing and fixing the damage would not even be worth it since SN10 and successors are being built right now? Treat your starships like cattle, not pets!
- nerpderp82 6y ago
  Fly it anyway and do a DiRT (pun intended).
Laremere 6y ago
Likely the most valuable parts are any engines that were mounted. (Have they mounted the engines?) My guess is that if they have a current surplus of engines, they'll try a fix and attempt to get data out of sn9, even if success chance is low. If they have more pressure vessels than engines for those pressure vessels, then I doubt sn9 will fly. Either way, one of the larger goals of these early prototypes is to iterate on how to make the starship quickly and inexpensively, so I doubt it's a total waste even if it doesn't fly.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

How do accidents like this even happen at an established company? That sort of stuff indicates a worrying proclivity to cut corners.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dgrin91 6y ago
All of this work is designed to be highly iterative, (relatively) low cost prototyping. Cutting corners is exactly what they are trying to do. If you hadn't seen before, until SN8 they were flying this thing without a nose cone. Cutting corners here is OK. The point is to find the mistakes. Better to find these issues now than to be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19#Damage_during_manufacture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19#Damage_during_manufact...
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Cutting corners here is OK No, it's not. Incidents like this tell a lot about internal culture. Things in highbays aren't supposed to fall over just like that, that sort of accident could have cost a life and certainly has lost the company money and set it back a few months. Safety is very clearly an afterthought at the Starship site. You can't have that in rocketry. They want to go to Mars and can't even get out of the assembly building in one piece! Starship is basic engineering in metal. The thing sat there and just fell over. There wasn't even any kind of load on it. That takes some effort!
  - jcims 6y ago
    I tend to agree with you, and that was definitely my first thought. However we don’t know what was going on when this happened. If it was just sitting on the stand and fell over that’s a problem, but they were clearly getting ready to move it and may have been transitioning to a set up where they could lift it. It’s possible (albeit unlikely) that this was a risk that they had calculated and put some countermeasures into place for. They just dropped one of these out of the sky from 8 miles up, but since the risk was managed in a very visible way it generally wasn’t considered a safety issue.
  - bogwog 6y ago
    This is a prototype during R&D. It's like when you press F5 and you get a compiler error because you accidentally used `.` when you should've used `->` to access a member function. Does this tell a lot about your abilities as a programmer? Do you hide this incident from your boss so that he doesn't realize you're a fraud? Should you tell your customers about this? It'll be much worse if they hear about it from someone else. The difference between `.` and `->` is basic engineering! You're trying to ship a product, but you can't even get out of the compiler in one piece!

bpodgursky 6y ago

Stainless steel. It'll buff out.

space_ghost 6y ago
Is it really clad in stainless steel? Seems like there would be lighter materials that would serve that role.
- davidivadavid 6y ago
  There are lighter materials but apparently they're more expensive and harder to work with, so steel ended up winning the cost/benefit analysis. There's been ample discussion about that when they originally started talking about it, e.g. https://www.space.com/43101-elon-musk-explains-stainless-steel-starship.html https://www.space.com/43101-elon-musk-explains-stainless-ste...
  - bombcar 6y ago
    I think the real reason is Elon Musk wants Buck Rogers style spaceships and will do whatever necessary to get there.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Probably not, SpaceX invested a lot of time and effort into composite tanks before giving that up.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      Having product that appeals to his not-so-hidden inner thirteen year old boy is definitely a motivation for Elon Musk. Exhibit A: cybertruck. Actually getting to Mars is a higher priority, though.
      - nerpderp82 6y ago
        Exhibit A', flame thrower.

scott31 6y ago

The other driver's insurance should pay for it

Technically 6y ago

Why does SpaceX "news" get so much visibility on this forum? It feels like people have a lot of emotion invested in a company. That cannot be good for your mental health.

hikerclimber 6y ago

good.

nikolay 6y ago

I won't comment on this one as anything negative about SpaceX gets huge downvote! I'm not sure what kind of engineering mentality goes after people who don't share their fanboism! On my previous comment on the Elon Musk comment regarding SN8's "success", every single comment I've made got -4 rating! Silencing people with downvoting them massively is the last thing I'd expect from self-respected engineering minds! Well, I just commented! Feel free to downvote!

dmix 6y ago
> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nikolay 6y ago
  It's a guideline, not a mandate.
bigbubba 6y ago
I generally agree that these discussions are tedious because of fanboys, but consider this: If SpaceX fans/employees didn't have an unreasonable amount of optimism, then SpaceX never would have put anything into orbit in the first place. If they weren't such fanatics, they would have given up 15 years ago before even trying.
- nikolay 6y ago
  They shouldn't dogpile to downvote though! Instead, they should provide meaningful comments.
- new_realist 6y ago
  SpaceX employees are paid. This has more to do with cheap capital than optimism.
seastonATccs 6y ago
https://youtu.be/e3h6es6zh1c?t=194 https://youtu.be/e3h6es6zh1c?t=194

dmix 6y ago

I know this is probably old hat by now but that thing looks massive with that person at the bottom for scale, especially considering it's only the upper stage.

ksaj 6y ago

Some see this as a complete failure, but it does also provide input into the practices that led up to and caused the accident. Rocketry is not limited to the activity between the launch and landing pads. This is precisely the reason there are so many tests - there WILL be failures along the way. There are at least 7 more such tests in the queue already.