4 ms·

Anyone know where I can find a recording of the "Twitter audio chat on Saturday"? As-is it's not clear the article's body supports the claim made in the headlin

Anyone know where I can find a recording of the "Twitter audio chat on Saturday"? As-is it's not clear the article's body supports the claim made in the headline. > Musk claimed it was because "the vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected." What do high "structural margins" have to do with inability of the self-destruct system to respond to commands? This is pure speculation (since again, I haven't been able to find the primary source), but it sounds to me like the self-destruct system did respond immediately, but the command to self-destruct wasn't issued because the vehicle took 40 seconds longer than expected to reach a state where a self-destruct was necessary. If that's true then this isn't a critical safety issue like the headline is implying.

Gwypaas 4y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ji93yeo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee...
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Thanks! Looks like the portion referenced in the article headline is at 3:16: https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196 https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    From Elon's description there it sounds like he believes the self-destruct system did immediately activate, but there wasn't enough detonation cord for the resulting explosion to immediately destroy the spacecraft at that altitude. That's where the "40 seconds" number comes from. He also suggests that re-qualifying the abort (self-destruct) system is the item that will take the most amount of time before they'll be ready for the next launch.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad." I'm still surprised by such a low bar.
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    It's in line with their previous style of iteration and small incremental changes on Starship, where they often have the next test article already lined up. I guess we're just not used to seeing it with a complete, large rocket stack.
techdragon 4y ago
Exactly the sort of questions I had before I wrote my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772716 I wanted to get the primary source but can’t unless I get lucky and someone saved it… and I can find the saved copy somehow… and I even know it happened to go look for it (which is a major issue when these things happen late at night in my Timezone and I may be asleep from before it’s even posted as an alert let alone when it’s done and disappears) If anyone has a copy, yeah I’d love the link as well.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Trying to make a case for SpaceX, my best excuse is that the tumble somehow prevented radio reception of the remote destruct command. Based on having watched Scott Manley's video though, I am surprised an onboard auto-destruct did not kick off immediately when it went through the first full rotation.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  I mean, that would actually be a terrible excuse though, no? The spinning should be expected enough that you go with a radio system/setup that can handle it.
sho_hn 4y ago
The summary from the reddit thread makes it sound like the "structural margins" statement was unrelated and about the somersaulting, not about the delayed self-destruct. The article may have taken it out of context.

Gwypaas 4y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ji93yeo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee...

Ajedi32 4y ago
Thanks! Looks like the portion referenced in the article headline is at 3:16: https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196 https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  From Elon's description there it sounds like he believes the self-destruct system did immediately activate, but there wasn't enough detonation cord for the resulting explosion to immediately destroy the spacecraft at that altitude. That's where the "40 seconds" number comes from. He also suggests that re-qualifying the abort (self-destruct) system is the item that will take the most amount of time before they'll be ready for the next launch.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
> Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad." I'm still surprised by such a low bar.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  It's in line with their previous style of iteration and small incremental changes on Starship, where they often have the next test article already lined up. I guess we're just not used to seeing it with a complete, large rocket stack.

techdragon 4y ago

Exactly the sort of questions I had before I wrote my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772716 I wanted to get the primary source but can’t unless I get lucky and someone saved it… and I can find the saved copy somehow… and I even know it happened to go look for it (which is a major issue when these things happen late at night in my Timezone and I may be asleep from before it’s even posted as an alert let alone when it’s done and disappears) If anyone has a copy, yeah I’d love the link as well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Trying to make a case for SpaceX, my best excuse is that the tumble somehow prevented radio reception of the remote destruct command. Based on having watched Scott Manley's video though, I am surprised an onboard auto-destruct did not kick off immediately when it went through the first full rotation.

sho_hn 4y ago
I mean, that would actually be a terrible excuse though, no? The spinning should be expected enough that you go with a radio system/setup that can handle it.

sho_hn 4y ago

The summary from the reddit thread makes it sound like the "structural margins" statement was unrelated and about the somersaulting, not about the delayed self-destruct. The article may have taken it out of context.