22 ms·

Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

471 points by BenoitP 3y ago

_ikke_ 3y ago
Lift-off
BenoitP 3y ago
When (launch window opening) * 4 hours from now * 5 AM Pacific Time * 7 AM Central Time (local) * 8 AM Eastern Time * 2 PM Central European Time Live Media * Official yet channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX * Labpadre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJTeeZj7k4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJTeeZj7k4 * NASASpaceflight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg * EverydayAstronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6na40SqzYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6na40SqzYnU * TheLaunchPad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0preOnsuo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0preOnsuo4 * TechniquesSpatiales(FR): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI4cKoSD-Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI4cKoSD-Jg Ressources * Mission sheet: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... * Intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18pCXD709TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18pCXD709TI * https://x.com/SpaceX https://x.com/SpaceX * https://x.com/elonmusk https://x.com/elonmusk * https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_integrated_flight_test_2_official_launch/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_int...
- _Microft 3y ago
  The SpaceX website also includes a live stream but it seems to be broadcast via Twitter: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... Edit: this stream works without having to login to Twitter
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    Does it requieres a X(exTwitter) account? I'm going to miss it. :(
    - 0xcoffee 3y ago
      I would recommend using the Nasa link posted above, since it's on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o
      - schiffern 3y ago
        > the Nasa link *NASASpaceflight NASASpaceflight.com (and their Youtube channel) has no affiliation with NASA.
        Y-bar 3y ago
        All these years I thought it was an official channel. When I first saw their logo it also reminded me of National Science Foundation that just cemented my (now corrected) belief.
        schiffern 3y ago
        No worries, it happens to the best of us. And also me. :) For years I was completely baffled why the National Science Foundation had to certify the wire shelving in my apartment... https://www.srs-i.com/blog/all-about-nsf-certifications-shelving/ https://www.srs-i.com/blog/all-about-nsf-certifications-shel...
        alright2565 3y ago
        When I first saw this branding, I was also confused. It's extremely sketchy, and I wish NASA would do something to protect their trademark.
      - gliptic 3y ago
        It's not NASA, but an independent group. There are others, like Everyday Astronaut.
- stavros 3y ago
  1 PM UTC, for those looking for the one universal time reference.
  - mnsc 3y ago
    PM? Part milliliter?
    - stavros 3y ago
      Post meridiem.
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      Milli- is "m" and "M" is mega-. You'll be off by 9 orders of magnitude if you confuse the two.
      - capableweb 3y ago
        But keyboard wise, it's just holding down shift vs not holding down shift when typing. The difference in real life between m and M is less than you think :)
    - euroderf 3y ago
      Fortnights? Check. Furlongs? Oops.
  - Asraelite 3y ago
    Providing Central European Time but not UTC/GMT is really weird
    - stavros 3y ago
      Providing any second timezone but not UTC/GMT is really weird. I don't want to have to figure out what other countries are doing with their daylight savings, just give me UTC and I'll know my current offset.
    - qwertox 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
BenoitP 3y ago
Seems like the link I posted does not work well. Here is the broadcast link after login redirect: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB
thrdbndndn 3y ago
@dang: can you please fix the link? It's supposed to be https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB
- BenoitP 3y ago
  I recreated a thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38318763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38318763 But it is marked as dupe (HN seems to have already queried it and classified as broken link)
- capableweb 3y ago
  Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg (NASASpaceflight) would be better, as it's accessible without any login-wall and doesn't require creating an account to view.
  - eddyg 3y ago
    That’s third-party/unofficial (and unaffiliated with NASA, despite the name) coverage. AFAIK they do not have access to all the cameras/drones/animations that the “real” SpaceX coverage does.
    - capableweb 3y ago
      Isn't it better that there is any feeds, than none? The Twitter/X link is not accessible for people outside the platform...
      - eddyg 3y ago
        Can’t you watch it here without an account? https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
        capableweb 3y ago
_joel 3y ago
Send it!
eddyg 3y ago
If you want to watch it on your iPhone in PIP, open the link in a browser like Firefox Focus and you can continue to read HN. :)
ryzvonusef 3y ago
A picture of the flight path https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvRfueAMkL_T0znIq34hbb1vXJ94Rrbj73MBTvjRLGRixcTavRDkt-JV-fBZzN7b_YINr2PhNRef3-ceG1jJNykPIbApBUkPlkUDab0F-qU7f35BgkeQrT6kCS5LjKs_tePcHZ9DcuDuhMs10HNzq5000R48a02OcjuZROkuoMNjEbwACe_yF/s1565/Starship_17nov2023_anot.jpg https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi... (taken from this website: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch-attempt-on-november.html https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch...) ____ In animation form: https://twitter.com/spencertetik/status/1725769578544803975 https://twitter.com/spencertetik/status/1725769578544803975
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Thanks. Cool to see the whole path.
- mechhacker 3y ago
  So they are trying a boostback. Are they going to try to land it or? NVM they said they were just going to let it splash.
  - entropicgravity 3y ago
    Ideally they wanted the booster to touch down on the ocean.
runesoerensen 3y ago
Link should be updated to https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725637151176659003 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725637151176659003 or https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... (no login required)
- dang 3y ago
  Fixed now. Thanks! (Submitted URL was https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB but our software got caught in a redirect to a login.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BenoitP 3y ago
There's a direct media stream that VLC can open (with network stream): https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/Oaafv8J5XEjB_RMmyUziiNwa5N-YzDsBp-oYCaq7_o7QMd2m9FufoQ8svuzaNb1Q90UEFkg5ZV5EEjTl637utQ/transcode/us-west-2/periscope-replay-direct-prod-us-west-2-public/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsInZlcnNpb24iOiIyIn0.eyJFbmNvZGVyU2V0dGluZyI6ImVuY29kZXJfc2V0dGluZ18xMDgwcDMwXzEwIiwiSGVpZ2h0IjoxMDgwLCJLYnBzIjo1NTAwLCJXaWR0aCI6MTkyMH0.OImMZabKYJ0cs9CnIapU-4aBk6KNBiJxi1hh-6l4BZ4/dynamic_highlatency.m3u8?type=live https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/O... ---- Much better quality, slightly better latency. Seems like it comes from the Periscope transcoding infrastructure. Found it on reddit here: https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_integrated_flight_test_2_official_launch/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_int...
- panick21_ 3y ago
  That's nice.
- geocrasher 3y ago
  Fantastic, much better quality. Thank you. For those who almost never use VLC (like me), don't download and then open the file. Instead open VLC, Update it from its ancient version, and then File, Open Network Stream, paste in https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/Oaafv8J5XEjB_RMmyUziiNwa5N-YzDsBp-oYCaq7_o7QMd2m9FufoQ8svuzaNb1Q90UEFkg5ZV5EEjTl637utQ/transcode/us-west-2/periscope-replay-direct-prod-us-west-2-public/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsInZlcnNpb24iOiIyIn0.eyJFbmNvZGVyU2V0dGluZyI6ImVuY29kZXJfc2V0dGluZ18xMDgwcDMwXzEwIiwiSGVpZ2h0IjoxMDgwLCJLYnBzIjo1NTAwLCJXaWR0aCI6MTkyMH0.OImMZabKYJ0cs9CnIapU-4aBk6KNBiJxi1hh-6l4BZ4/dynamic_highlatency.m3u8?type=live https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/O... then click Play. Enjoy.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    It’ll open natively in Safari too.
    - dankle 3y ago
cryptoz 3y ago
Stayed up all night looking forward to this. Fingers crossed for success on hotstaging - I think that's what everyone is most worried about. I read that due to the continuous thrust with hotstaging they can carry more payload with that design, rather than losing upward momentum during stage separation. Gosh this is exciting. Oblig, I can't wait until these are happening every day!!
mechhacker 3y ago
I'm hoping that this one makes the 2nd stage partial (or full?) orbit. This thing is a gamechanger.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Looks like they terminated the flight. I honestly thought they were going to make it and get reentry data.
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  Reaching true orbit wasn't in the plan for the test. Seems like they got close to their plan, but something went wrong.
BenoitP 3y ago
SpaceX on Twitter: "T-40 seconds and holding. This is a planned hold. Teams are using this time for final checks. All systems continue to look good for today’s flight test"
michaelmarion 3y ago
...THAT was a big explosion.
- mechhacker 3y ago
  Yeah that was nuts
- geocrasher 3y ago
  Can't wait to see the high quality images and video from that. Wow.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  Everyone who does special effects for science fiction movies should watch that explosion.
- regularfry 3y ago
  They did not go to space today. But they got REALLY CLOSE.
  - lutorm 3y ago
    They actually went well into space, given the conventional boundary of 100km.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  The rocket was mostly empty, so it wasn't all that powerful. Imagine the power if it explodes fully tanked.
mechhacker 3y ago
1st stage turned around then exploded. Second stage is doing well so far. Edit had the second sentence wrong
- geocrasher 3y ago
  And the fact that it survived long enough for the second stage to get on its way was incredible in itself. We'll see how it goes!
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      The rest of the industry doesn't really matter, they aren't landing and reusing boosters. Nor are they developing any rocket system this quickly.
    - bogantech 3y ago
      What new things have the rest of the industry done lately?
    - kortilla 3y ago
      The “rest of the industry” isn’t doing anything at all.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        IMO this is the coolest thing the rest of the industry is doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzqhZLgpiv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzqhZLgpiv0
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Darmody 3y ago
I blinked and the first stage disappeared.
- czottmann 3y ago
  Why did you do it
  - Darmody 3y ago
    My apologies, won't blink again.
sjaak 3y ago
Amazing
SushiHippie 3y ago
Does anyone know how the start was filmed? The first shot was a drone, but after that it nearly looked like either cgi or another rocket flying next to it.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Video feed switched to ground tracking cam.
- _Microft 3y ago
  Maybe something like this: https://curious-droid.com/393/nasa-filmed-apollo-shuttle-launches/ https://curious-droid.com/393/nasa-filmed-apollo-shuttle-lau...
  - SushiHippie 3y ago
    Thanks, this could be it
foota 3y ago
Did anyone else just see something fly down on the stream? About T+8:30. I wonder if it was part of the exploded first stage.
- mechhacker 3y ago
  I thought I saw an explosion but they seem unsure
  - foota 3y ago
    Naw, there was that cloud of dust I saw, but this was like a black falling object.
    - mechhacker 3y ago
      Interesting, did not catch that
      - foota 3y ago
        It's at 46:55 here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725861547065684095 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725861547065684095 I took some screenshots: https://ibb.co/1GvddL5 https://ibb.co/1GvddL5 https://ibb.co/28BSxwG https://ibb.co/28BSxwG https://ibb.co/KmccttG https://ibb.co/KmccttG Could be a bird, but doesn't really look like it to me.
        notfish 3y ago
        booster confetti
ChatGTP 3y ago
Is this thing launching from Mars? wow
DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
A new era of humanity just started.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  Tell me about this new era while I am sitting homeless in my minivan…
  - DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
    There were people suffering when Sputnik launched, or when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It doesn't reduce the magnitude of the event. Sorry for whatever you are going through, though. Hope you get through it.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      That was my point, you talk about new eras, but nothing changes. Who is this new for? You, me, or the billionaires who make lives like mine horrible? It’s all spectacle, and where will it all lead? We landed men on the moon, and haven’t been back. What is SpaceX going to use for going to Mars? Are you gonna be the one that’s going or are they gonna leave you behind to rot here on this burning planet?
      - chpatrick 3y ago
        Mars is a horrible place to live so I'll take Earth any day. But it would be nice if humanity doesn't get wiped out if we get unlucky with an asteroid.
        KennyBlanken 3y ago
        In the meantime, we're already well into ecological collapse (I think we've lost something like 3/4s of the earth's species?) and existential-threat-level climate change which in fifty years or so will be so bad we'll be dealing with near constant humanitarian crises...with no sign of improvement on either front. Decarbonization isn't happening nearly fast enough and industrial pollution is chugging along. Frankly, I don't see human society surviving long enough - or perhaps better put, maintaining a necessary level of societal development - for us to develop the tech to establish a self-sufficient colony capable of independent growth and to get us to a planet with the resources to make such a thing possible. It's hard to make rocket parts when everyone is living in shacks made of sticks and mud and leaves.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
They hotstaged the booster! That was freaking awesome!
woliveirajr 3y ago
Lost contact with the Starship at t+08:43, more or less
dewbrite 3y ago
Stage 2 flight termination? :'(
Podgajski 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rafamvc 3y ago
  It does have a positive spin, and that is a good thing. I did check your comments and you seem to have a negative spin on most of your comments. Maybe their tone is not compatible to yours. But gross and delusional seem wrong considering what they have accomplished so far. Their work is inspiring and deserves the praise and positivity.
  - icegreentea2 3y ago
    Heh, I generally agree with you. But you really do need to wonder how much of the "SpaceX" cheering is staged/prompted. For example, they let out a big cheer from the SpaceX employees right after Starship RUD'd (try t+8:30). But the interleaved shots of their actual control center shows far more restraint. Certainly no overly disappointed looks, but Elon's face looks quite measured. Though of course, even the most negative cynical person can make this whole by rationalizing that the line employees cheering are cheering the flaming end of a death march (and channeling all of their suppressed 'i told you so's), while trying to blind themselves to the next upcoming death march.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Yes, this is my point. It’s marketing. I was taught not to wallow in my failures, but not to celebrate them either when I’m trying to reach a larger goal. There’s no success in failure, that’s an oxymoron,. You can learn things from failure, but it’s not a success never.
      - jryle70 3y ago
        Of course there’s success in failure. If you need 10 things to work right, and you can't verify all 10 things at once (because they need to happen in sequence), but you make it step by step, then it's a success. If you can verify not one but multiple things in a single test, that'd be a big success. If all 10 things work then it's a total success. And if you can repeat the test 10 times, then you have a home run, especially for something as groundbreaking as Starship. Why is it so difficult to understand? I'm sure you know the odd of 10 things failing is not 10 times of a single failure, but much higher.
_stones 3y ago
[flagged]
JanSt 3y ago
Incredible. What a time to be alive
belter 3y ago
Sounds like they lost both stages but it was glorious. Still progress. This will add another 6 months to a year before another try...
- dotnet00 3y ago
  IIRC they're aiming for the next one to be between ~February-April.
- foota 3y ago
  Why so long? Will they need to go through another round of FAA approval? Or?
  - belter 3y ago
    They will need to find out what happened. Develop, build and test new hardware to fix what did not work. And wait on the new FAA review. This is the old one: https://www.faa.gov/media/72816 https://www.faa.gov/media/72816
    - avhon1 3y ago
      Most of the content of that report is about the deluge system for the launch pad. Since it tentatively appears that this worked, I have high hopes for much more expedient environmental reviews of future test flights.
  - idlewords 3y ago
    They need to redesign the bottom half of the rocket so it doesn't blow up during staging, and figure out what happened to the top half and fix that.
    - saberience 3y ago
      It wont be six months. Also, your comment makes it seem like they would have redesign the whole first stage, which is highly unlikely. This is the first time they've tried to do a hot staging and it might be something relatively easy to fix related to that. For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry.
geocrasher 3y ago
Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    It's just because last time that was an issue.
    - badcppdev 3y ago
      100% and that issue was very important to the FAA. Being able to blow up a rocket if it starts to go off course is absolutely critical
  - olig15 3y ago
    Im not interpreting their message as negative. Something obviously went wrong, the termination system was activated, and it blew up. Thats what it’s supposed to do when activated.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      >Im not interpreting their message as negative. But shouldn't it be interpreted as negative? It blew up.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        The FTS failed last time and it caused months of delays with the FAA. This time it worked so there should be fewer delays from regulators in the future.
      - 3y ago
gonzo41 3y ago
Does this one have a flame deflector?
- hypercube33 3y ago
  I believe so. It also has some water cooling thing that sprays the pad
ironyman 3y ago
- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)
- mechhacker 3y ago
  Wonder if hot staging caused issues with both vehicles or it was two separate issues.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    I could believe that hot staging might've affected the booster, since it seemed to blow up right as it tried to light the engines again for boostback. But I don't think the ship would've made it so long if it were seriously damaged by the hotstaging.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Damage to the grid fins mechanism is a potential failure mode here. Even a small amount of damage to the flight control systems could make the procedure uncontrollable and eventually trigger the FTS.
      - anovikov 3y ago
        At this altitude, the vehicle is pretty much in the vacuum and grid fins have absolutely no control authority. It could have resulted in failure later on but not at that point where the booster blew up.
        pixl97 3y ago
        Saw that Scott Manley video that came out right after that and it looks like fuel issues to engines probably caused it. All but one engine started up, but they started failing after that. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac
mongol 3y ago
What is the benfit of hot staging?
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Maintaining velocity / acceleration.
- idlewords 3y ago
  Fantastically cool explosion
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Their previous method didn't work at all.
- martindevans 3y ago
  Less time spent not firing engines, no need for separation hardware (e.g. hydraulic pushers), no need for ullage thrusters (settling fuel before lighting stage 2).
- aw1621107 3y ago
  To expand on KennyBlanken's answer: Rockets generally want their fuel to be sitting on the bottom of the tank, where the engines are. That's easy enough when the rocket is sitting on the ground and when the engines are firing, but once the rocket starts coasting/decelerating (e.g., when the engines turn off due to reaching the end of their burn) the fuel may drift away from the fuel intakes, resulting in the engines ingesting vapor/gas the next time the engines turn on. Rocket engines are designed with a pretty specific operating environment in mind, so ingesting vapor/gas instead of fuel usually leads to the engines expressing their displeasure in a very vocal fashion. This poses a challenge for staging. The naive way to stage is to turn off the previous stage's engines then ignite the next stage's, but the time between the first set of engines turning off and the second set of engines reaching a sufficient thrust level to keep the fuel at the bottom of the tanks may be enough for the fuel to drift away from the fuel intakes, especially if staging occurs lower in the atmosphere or after an extended coast period. One way of addressing this issue is to use "ullage thrusters" - small rockets that maintain a small amount of forwards acceleration during staging to keep the fuel at the bottom of the tanks. This is what the Saturn rocket did between the first/second stages. Another way is to "hot stage" - ignite the new set of engines before the old ones cut out. This is what the Soyuz does (and is why its stages are connected with a lattice - to let the exhaust out), and is what Starship was trying out this time. This can be simpler than using ullage motors since there are fewer pieces, but also poses some additional challenges in that the first stage needs to survive the second stage's exhaust for long enough. The last way is to use RCS thrusters for a period to settle the fuel. This was used by the Saturn third stage before trans-lunar injection, but can really only be used once you're in orbit.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
baq 3y ago
Can't wait to see if the pad survived! If it did, they might make another attempt sooner than expected.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Definitely did better than last time!
- dotnet00 3y ago
  It appears to have fared much better at least in terms of the metric that the various streaming cameras near the site that were damaged last time are fine this time.
dotnet00 3y ago
Really surprised by how the Raptors performed! Genuinely didn't expect that they'd have them all lighting up properly already.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Yeah that stood out to me too. Hopefully they'll drop some info on what the metrics said, but that looked like a full healthy set to me.
- mjamesaustin 3y ago
  Yeah this is a huge positive. Perfect performance of all 33 engines, up until the boost back anyway.
  - ben_bai 3y ago
    I think the engines worked perfectly. The booster broke up in the middle, at least it looks like it on the everyday astronaut feed.
- pelorat 3y ago
  I believe this flight used the old Raptor engines, and not the new simplified ones.
  - sbuttgereit 3y ago
    Pretty sure they used Raptor V2 which simplifies from V1; Raptor V3 I believe is simpler still, but that's still being tested at the SpaceX MacGregor TX facility.
- le-mark 3y ago
  No green hue is the flame is definitely a good thing, considering the first few flights the Raptors clearly consumed themselves!
theyinwhy 3y ago
[flagged]
- theyinwhy 3y ago
  Everyone downvoting is hopefully aware that Tesla is doing this exact thing with their autopilot. "10 active lawsuits going to court next year" [0]. But let's all trust Elon to do a better job when roadtrips become spacetrips. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/tesla-autopilot-crash-analysis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/t...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    My biggest objection to autopilot (beyond the misleading branding) is that other drivers and pedestrians haven’t consented to the beta testing that might kill them. I think this is a serious ethical and regulatory failing. Someone hopping in a rocket presumably knows what they’re signing up for, and I have a lot more confidence in the FAA; they seem to be a lot stricter on safety.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      Pedestrians didn't consent to human drivers either. The general public also didn't consent to any other human activity that could kill them in general. So that's a line that gets trotted out for self driving, but not one that is really used for anything else.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Human drivers aren't "in beta". I know there are human drivers when I'm crossing the crosswalk. I don't know which ones have delegated to a beta self-driving app.
        fragmede 3y ago
        Do you know when they're using an app on their phone while driving though? Because safety is the crux of the issue, and human drivers are notoriously terrible at driving. Having lost a friend on the first of the year to a driver who didn't stop, human drivers are drunk, distracted, and falling asleep at the wheel. They're not in "beta" only because they're not computer programs. That doesn't mean they're not absolute menaces though.
yarekt 3y ago
Impressive, but does anyone know where will the debris from the second stage re-enter?
- kortilla 3y ago
  The flight termination system detonated the ship so it was blown into small enough pieces that they all likely burned up on reentry. Might find a heat tile at the bottom of the gulf.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- reportingsjr 3y ago
  A rough estimate from Jonathan McDowell (well known for tracking lots of space objects and launches) is that the debris landed north east of the Turks and Caicos islands. https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725873032244195495 https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725873032244195495 Edit: a newer update shows direct evidence of the debris field area https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725917544114974995#m https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725917544114974995#m
kaiwen1 3y ago
It’s astounding that until very recently it was standard practice to put humans on top of untested, first-of-kind rockets.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Well, to be fair, NASA is much more risk-averse than SpaceX. That’s why everything takes so much longer, the “classic” way. But the way SpaceX does things, gets seriously good results, quite quickly (and gives us some great videos of stuff getting blowed up).
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I think it's the other way around. NASA flew the shuttle 135 times and lost two of them, but they kept going after the first failure. And both failures followed NASA being advised of the root cause before the orbiters' destruction, and NASA management ignored the advice. Meanwhile the safety track record for Falcon 9 exceeds that of the shuttle, and it exceeded it before humans were put on top of Falcon 9. The Apollo program did very few launches and yet they put humans on top of it. No, I think what you might say is that NASA in the 60s cared a lot less about safety than SpaceX do today, though perhaps NASA today cares a lot more about safety than NASA 20 years ago (and definitely than 60 years ago).
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      Lip-service to safety versus actual safety that looks unsafe. I deal with bureaucracies a lot and this is how they do everything: it has to look good, but they don’t actually care to make things good. E.g.: fill out a ton of paperwork about how secure the web application is against hacking, but nobody reviews the source code for vulnerabilities. Or they fill out the paperwork and report the app as “secure” even when third parties like me are listing vulnerability after vulnerability. The report is what mattered, not reality. OFFICIALLY, on paper, the Shuttle was very safe.
      - cryptonector 3y ago
Geee 3y ago
That was a beautiful launch. Would love if someone filmed in HDR to see the brightness and hue of the exhaust more accurately.
pdar4123 3y ago
I have loved watching space x launches for years. And here I am, scrolling around on my phone and I can’t for the life of me find a stream that opens- this is just so sad
- ge96 3y ago
  You could watch someone's capture on YT, I didn't wake up in time myself dang.
- dmix 3y ago
  At 2:30 https://www.youtube.com/live/A8Z9LUX7fg0?si=r3brlpnVw5xoAgr_ https://www.youtube.com/live/A8Z9LUX7fg0?si=r3brlpnVw5xoAgr_
haspok 3y ago
Even Thunderfoot was impressed: https://www.youtube.com/live/BLlctxJnxy8?si=4NOk13foG-cIPbQL&t=3658 https://www.youtube.com/live/BLlctxJnxy8?si=4NOk13foG-cIPbQL...
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Seening that idiot be linked on HN makes me sad.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nurettin 3y ago
Overall it looked like a good launch. But I think the world ended up with a bunch of space debris at around 150 km above earth, which will eventually come down (hopefully won't land on someone's head, or backyard), since it wasn't travelling at orbital velocity.
kortex 3y ago
What is the sudden change in the exhaust plume at occurs here [1] at 149km / 17650 kph? I believe that's squarely in the thermosphere, and there aren't any step changes in temperature/pressure at that point that I'm aware of. It would make sense if that were near the mesopause, but that's around 100km. Maybe it's something on SpaceX's side of things, a change in the burn profile? Perhaps it's related to losing the Starship about a minute later. [1] https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?t=446 https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?t=446
- oliv5900 3y ago
  According to Scott Manleys video, it seems like an oxygen leak. You can see below that from that point onwards, oxygen depletion rate increased. Maybe this lack of oxygen led to the engines flaming out early, triggering the AFTS.
- jdworrells 3y ago
  I think what you are seeing is a sudden burst of poorly combusted and/or unburned fuel as the engines are cut off. The engine telemetry indicators in the bottom right of the screen show engines off shortly after the plume.
- lutorm 3y ago
  Yeah, this is a good question. It could be from the engines, but nothing should change at that point that I can think of, since it's well before shutdown. It might also start to vent something, intentionally or not. I hope they tell us.
wly_cdgr 3y ago
Seems like a solid B, yes?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ridgeguy 3y ago
Starship re-entering over Puerto Rico: https://twitter.com/eliassob/status/1725871782186381474 https://twitter.com/eliassob/status/1725871782186381474
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Or what's left of it, anyway.
yodsanklai 3y ago
I understand that having these prototype rockets blow up may be a cost-efficient way of improving the design. However, I still wonder how much of that was really expected, and what it says about the project progress. Also, how many successful launches will they consider enough before putting people's life at risk. I wouldn't feel super confident going into that rocket after having seen it blow up many times.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  The Falcon 9 rocket started off the same way. They blew up on launch and on landing multiple times early in its development, but has now become perhaps the most reliable and certainly the most reusable rocket model in history, with hundreds of launches per year now with no incidents.
- mlindner 3y ago
  The first planned use for Starship will likely be launching Starlink satellites. And there's no immediate plans to directly launch with humans on board. I'd personally ballpark that there will be well over 20 launches before anything regarding humans is considered.
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  It seems like the ship was terminated due to being off-course (which couldn't be corrected once its propellant was burned through). It succeeded in reaching space, it seemed to reach almost-orbit (they deliberately made it slightly slower, to avoid becoming a giant piece of space-junk if they happened to lose contact/control), so they've almost got it working as a traditional rocket. All of the crazy stuff they're planning, like returning and catching the booster, having the ship re-enter and land/get-caught, in-orbit refuelling, etc. will probably take a while to get right; but those are all "bonus features" that other rockets/companies don't bother with. I imagine it will be launching satellites pretty soon (next year?), at least in-house Starlinks, since refuelling, re-entering, landing, etc. can be done after the payload is safely deployed; and returning/catching the booster only takes place after safe separation (as we saw today, when the ship kept going after the booster's spectacular demise) It will take a while to human-rate it. I imagine we'll start by seeing crews transferring to Starships that launch uncrewed (e.g. like the HLS for Nasa); eventually we'll probably see crew launch, once it's established a decent track record. I'm unsure if we'll ever see people in the landing flip; I'd rather eject beforehand and parachute down!
Kennethcosta 3y ago
[dead]

471 points by BenoitP 3y ago

Lift-off

When (launch window opening) * 4 hours from now * 5 AM Pacific Time * 7 AM Central Time (local) * 8 AM Eastern Time * 2 PM Central European Time Live Media * Official yet channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX * Labpadre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJTeeZj7k4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJTeeZj7k4 * NASASpaceflight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg * EverydayAstronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6na40SqzYnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6na40SqzYnU * TheLaunchPad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0preOnsuo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0preOnsuo4 * TechniquesSpatiales(FR): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI4cKoSD-Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI4cKoSD-Jg Ressources * Mission sheet: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... * Intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18pCXD709TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18pCXD709TI * https://x.com/SpaceX https://x.com/SpaceX * https://x.com/elonmusk https://x.com/elonmusk * https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_integrated_flight_test_2_official_launch/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_int...

_Microft 3y ago
The SpaceX website also includes a live stream but it seems to be broadcast via Twitter: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... Edit: this stream works without having to login to Twitter
- gus_massa 3y ago
  Does it requieres a X(exTwitter) account? I'm going to miss it. :(
  - 0xcoffee 3y ago
    I would recommend using the Nasa link posted above, since it's on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o
    - schiffern 3y ago
      > the Nasa link *NASASpaceflight NASASpaceflight.com (and their Youtube channel) has no affiliation with NASA.
      - Y-bar 3y ago
        All these years I thought it was an official channel. When I first saw their logo it also reminded me of National Science Foundation that just cemented my (now corrected) belief.
        schiffern 3y ago
        No worries, it happens to the best of us. And also me. :) For years I was completely baffled why the National Science Foundation had to certify the wire shelving in my apartment... https://www.srs-i.com/blog/all-about-nsf-certifications-shelving/ https://www.srs-i.com/blog/all-about-nsf-certifications-shel...
      - alright2565 3y ago
        When I first saw this branding, I was also confused. It's extremely sketchy, and I wish NASA would do something to protect their trademark.
    - gliptic 3y ago
      It's not NASA, but an independent group. There are others, like Everyday Astronaut.
stavros 3y ago
1 PM UTC, for those looking for the one universal time reference.
- mnsc 3y ago
  PM? Part milliliter?
  - stavros 3y ago
    Post meridiem.
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    Milli- is "m" and "M" is mega-. You'll be off by 9 orders of magnitude if you confuse the two.
    - capableweb 3y ago
      But keyboard wise, it's just holding down shift vs not holding down shift when typing. The difference in real life between m and M is less than you think :)
  - euroderf 3y ago
    Fortnights? Check. Furlongs? Oops.
- Asraelite 3y ago
  Providing Central European Time but not UTC/GMT is really weird
  - stavros 3y ago
    Providing any second timezone but not UTC/GMT is really weird. I don't want to have to figure out what other countries are doing with their daylight savings, just give me UTC and I'll know my current offset.
  - qwertox 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

BenoitP 3y ago

Seems like the link I posted does not work well. Here is the broadcast link after login redirect: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB

thrdbndndn 3y ago

@dang: can you please fix the link? It's supposed to be https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB

BenoitP 3y ago
I recreated a thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38318763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38318763 But it is marked as dupe (HN seems to have already queried it and classified as broken link)
capableweb 3y ago
Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg (NASASpaceflight) would be better, as it's accessible without any login-wall and doesn't require creating an account to view.
- eddyg 3y ago
  That’s third-party/unofficial (and unaffiliated with NASA, despite the name) coverage. AFAIK they do not have access to all the cameras/drones/animations that the “real” SpaceX coverage does.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    Isn't it better that there is any feeds, than none? The Twitter/X link is not accessible for people outside the platform...
    - eddyg 3y ago
      Can’t you watch it here without an account? https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
      - capableweb 3y ago

_joel 3y ago

Send it!

eddyg 3y ago

If you want to watch it on your iPhone in PIP, open the link in a browser like Firefox Focus and you can continue to read HN. :)

ryzvonusef 3y ago

A picture of the flight path https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvRfueAMkL_T0znIq34hbb1vXJ94Rrbj73MBTvjRLGRixcTavRDkt-JV-fBZzN7b_YINr2PhNRef3-ceG1jJNykPIbApBUkPlkUDab0F-qU7f35BgkeQrT6kCS5LjKs_tePcHZ9DcuDuhMs10HNzq5000R48a02OcjuZROkuoMNjEbwACe_yF/s1565/Starship_17nov2023_anot.jpg https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi... (taken from this website: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch-attempt-on-november.html https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch...) ____ In animation form: https://twitter.com/spencertetik/status/1725769578544803975 https://twitter.com/spencertetik/status/1725769578544803975

panick21_ 3y ago
Thanks. Cool to see the whole path.
mechhacker 3y ago
So they are trying a boostback. Are they going to try to land it or? NVM they said they were just going to let it splash.
- entropicgravity 3y ago
  Ideally they wanted the booster to touch down on the ocean.

runesoerensen 3y ago

Link should be updated to https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725637151176659003 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725637151176659003 or https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... (no login required)

dang 3y ago
Fixed now. Thanks! (Submitted URL was https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB but our software got caught in a redirect to a login.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BenoitP 3y ago

There's a direct media stream that VLC can open (with network stream): https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/Oaafv8J5XEjB_RMmyUziiNwa5N-YzDsBp-oYCaq7_o7QMd2m9FufoQ8svuzaNb1Q90UEFkg5ZV5EEjTl637utQ/transcode/us-west-2/periscope-replay-direct-prod-us-west-2-public/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsInZlcnNpb24iOiIyIn0.eyJFbmNvZGVyU2V0dGluZyI6ImVuY29kZXJfc2V0dGluZ18xMDgwcDMwXzEwIiwiSGVpZ2h0IjoxMDgwLCJLYnBzIjo1NTAwLCJXaWR0aCI6MTkyMH0.OImMZabKYJ0cs9CnIapU-4aBk6KNBiJxi1hh-6l4BZ4/dynamic_highlatency.m3u8?type=live https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/O... ---- Much better quality, slightly better latency. Seems like it comes from the Periscope transcoding infrastructure. Found it on reddit here: https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_integrated_flight_test_2_official_launch/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/17uyblj/rspacex_int...

panick21_ 3y ago
That's nice.
geocrasher 3y ago
Fantastic, much better quality. Thank you. For those who almost never use VLC (like me), don't download and then open the file. Instead open VLC, Update it from its ancient version, and then File, Open Network Stream, paste in https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/Oaafv8J5XEjB_RMmyUziiNwa5N-YzDsBp-oYCaq7_o7QMd2m9FufoQ8svuzaNb1Q90UEFkg5ZV5EEjTl637utQ/transcode/us-west-2/periscope-replay-direct-prod-us-west-2-public/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsInZlcnNpb24iOiIyIn0.eyJFbmNvZGVyU2V0dGluZyI6ImVuY29kZXJfc2V0dGluZ18xMDgwcDMwXzEwIiwiSGVpZ2h0IjoxMDgwLCJLYnBzIjo1NTAwLCJXaWR0aCI6MTkyMH0.OImMZabKYJ0cs9CnIapU-4aBk6KNBiJxi1hh-6l4BZ4/dynamic_highlatency.m3u8?type=live https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/O... then click Play. Enjoy.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  It’ll open natively in Safari too.
  - dankle 3y ago

cryptoz 3y ago

Stayed up all night looking forward to this. Fingers crossed for success on hotstaging - I think that's what everyone is most worried about. I read that due to the continuous thrust with hotstaging they can carry more payload with that design, rather than losing upward momentum during stage separation. Gosh this is exciting. Oblig, I can't wait until these are happening every day!!

mechhacker 3y ago

I'm hoping that this one makes the 2nd stage partial (or full?) orbit. This thing is a gamechanger.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Looks like they terminated the flight. I honestly thought they were going to make it and get reentry data.
sbuttgereit 3y ago
Reaching true orbit wasn't in the plan for the test. Seems like they got close to their plan, but something went wrong.

BenoitP 3y ago

SpaceX on Twitter: "T-40 seconds and holding. This is a planned hold. Teams are using this time for final checks. All systems continue to look good for today’s flight test"

michaelmarion 3y ago

...THAT was a big explosion.

mechhacker 3y ago
Yeah that was nuts
geocrasher 3y ago
Can't wait to see the high quality images and video from that. Wow.
mr_toad 3y ago
Everyone who does special effects for science fiction movies should watch that explosion.
regularfry 3y ago
They did not go to space today. But they got REALLY CLOSE.
- lutorm 3y ago
  They actually went well into space, given the conventional boundary of 100km.
panick21_ 3y ago
The rocket was mostly empty, so it wasn't all that powerful. Imagine the power if it explodes fully tanked.

mechhacker 3y ago

1st stage turned around then exploded. Second stage is doing well so far. Edit had the second sentence wrong

geocrasher 3y ago
And the fact that it survived long enough for the second stage to get on its way was incredible in itself. We'll see how it goes!
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    The rest of the industry doesn't really matter, they aren't landing and reusing boosters. Nor are they developing any rocket system this quickly.
  - bogantech 3y ago
    What new things have the rest of the industry done lately?
  - kortilla 3y ago
    The “rest of the industry” isn’t doing anything at all.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      IMO this is the coolest thing the rest of the industry is doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzqhZLgpiv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzqhZLgpiv0

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Darmody 3y ago

I blinked and the first stage disappeared.

czottmann 3y ago
Why did you do it
- Darmody 3y ago
  My apologies, won't blink again.

sjaak 3y ago

Amazing

SushiHippie 3y ago

Does anyone know how the start was filmed? The first shot was a drone, but after that it nearly looked like either cgi or another rocket flying next to it.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Video feed switched to ground tracking cam.
_Microft 3y ago
Maybe something like this: https://curious-droid.com/393/nasa-filmed-apollo-shuttle-launches/ https://curious-droid.com/393/nasa-filmed-apollo-shuttle-lau...
- SushiHippie 3y ago
  Thanks, this could be it

foota 3y ago

Did anyone else just see something fly down on the stream? About T+8:30. I wonder if it was part of the exploded first stage.

mechhacker 3y ago
I thought I saw an explosion but they seem unsure
- foota 3y ago
  Naw, there was that cloud of dust I saw, but this was like a black falling object.
  - mechhacker 3y ago
    Interesting, did not catch that
    - foota 3y ago
      It's at 46:55 here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725861547065684095 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725861547065684095 I took some screenshots: https://ibb.co/1GvddL5 https://ibb.co/1GvddL5 https://ibb.co/28BSxwG https://ibb.co/28BSxwG https://ibb.co/KmccttG https://ibb.co/KmccttG Could be a bird, but doesn't really look like it to me.
      - notfish 3y ago
        booster confetti

ChatGTP 3y ago

Is this thing launching from Mars? wow

DarmokJalad1701 3y ago

A new era of humanity just started.

Podgajski 3y ago
Tell me about this new era while I am sitting homeless in my minivan…
- DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
  There were people suffering when Sputnik launched, or when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It doesn't reduce the magnitude of the event. Sorry for whatever you are going through, though. Hope you get through it.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    That was my point, you talk about new eras, but nothing changes. Who is this new for? You, me, or the billionaires who make lives like mine horrible? It’s all spectacle, and where will it all lead? We landed men on the moon, and haven’t been back. What is SpaceX going to use for going to Mars? Are you gonna be the one that’s going or are they gonna leave you behind to rot here on this burning planet?
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      Mars is a horrible place to live so I'll take Earth any day. But it would be nice if humanity doesn't get wiped out if we get unlucky with an asteroid.
      - KennyBlanken 3y ago
        In the meantime, we're already well into ecological collapse (I think we've lost something like 3/4s of the earth's species?) and existential-threat-level climate change which in fifty years or so will be so bad we'll be dealing with near constant humanitarian crises...with no sign of improvement on either front. Decarbonization isn't happening nearly fast enough and industrial pollution is chugging along. Frankly, I don't see human society surviving long enough - or perhaps better put, maintaining a necessary level of societal development - for us to develop the tech to establish a self-sufficient colony capable of independent growth and to get us to a planet with the resources to make such a thing possible. It's hard to make rocket parts when everyone is living in shacks made of sticks and mud and leaves.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

They hotstaged the booster! That was freaking awesome!

woliveirajr 3y ago

Lost contact with the Starship at t+08:43, more or less

dewbrite 3y ago

Stage 2 flight termination? :'(

Podgajski 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rafamvc 3y ago
It does have a positive spin, and that is a good thing. I did check your comments and you seem to have a negative spin on most of your comments. Maybe their tone is not compatible to yours. But gross and delusional seem wrong considering what they have accomplished so far. Their work is inspiring and deserves the praise and positivity.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  Heh, I generally agree with you. But you really do need to wonder how much of the "SpaceX" cheering is staged/prompted. For example, they let out a big cheer from the SpaceX employees right after Starship RUD'd (try t+8:30). But the interleaved shots of their actual control center shows far more restraint. Certainly no overly disappointed looks, but Elon's face looks quite measured. Though of course, even the most negative cynical person can make this whole by rationalizing that the line employees cheering are cheering the flaming end of a death march (and channeling all of their suppressed 'i told you so's), while trying to blind themselves to the next upcoming death march.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    Yes, this is my point. It’s marketing. I was taught not to wallow in my failures, but not to celebrate them either when I’m trying to reach a larger goal. There’s no success in failure, that’s an oxymoron,. You can learn things from failure, but it’s not a success never.
    - jryle70 3y ago
      Of course there’s success in failure. If you need 10 things to work right, and you can't verify all 10 things at once (because they need to happen in sequence), but you make it step by step, then it's a success. If you can verify not one but multiple things in a single test, that'd be a big success. If all 10 things work then it's a total success. And if you can repeat the test 10 times, then you have a home run, especially for something as groundbreaking as Starship. Why is it so difficult to understand? I'm sure you know the odd of 10 things failing is not 10 times of a single failure, but much higher.

_stones 3y ago

[flagged]

JanSt 3y ago

Incredible. What a time to be alive

belter 3y ago

Sounds like they lost both stages but it was glorious. Still progress. This will add another 6 months to a year before another try...

dotnet00 3y ago
IIRC they're aiming for the next one to be between ~February-April.
foota 3y ago
Why so long? Will they need to go through another round of FAA approval? Or?
- belter 3y ago
  They will need to find out what happened. Develop, build and test new hardware to fix what did not work. And wait on the new FAA review. This is the old one: https://www.faa.gov/media/72816 https://www.faa.gov/media/72816
  - avhon1 3y ago
    Most of the content of that report is about the deluge system for the launch pad. Since it tentatively appears that this worked, I have high hopes for much more expedient environmental reviews of future test flights.
- idlewords 3y ago
  They need to redesign the bottom half of the rocket so it doesn't blow up during staging, and figure out what happened to the top half and fix that.
  - saberience 3y ago
    It wont be six months. Also, your comment makes it seem like they would have redesign the whole first stage, which is highly unlikely. This is the first time they've tried to do a hot staging and it might be something relatively easy to fix related to that. For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry.

geocrasher 3y ago

Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.

Podgajski 3y ago
[flagged]
- dotnet00 3y ago
  It's just because last time that was an issue.
  - badcppdev 3y ago
    100% and that issue was very important to the FAA. Being able to blow up a rocket if it starts to go off course is absolutely critical
- olig15 3y ago
  Im not interpreting their message as negative. Something obviously went wrong, the termination system was activated, and it blew up. Thats what it’s supposed to do when activated.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    >Im not interpreting their message as negative. But shouldn't it be interpreted as negative? It blew up.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      The FTS failed last time and it caused months of delays with the FAA. This time it worked so there should be fewer delays from regulators in the future.
    - 3y ago

gonzo41 3y ago

Does this one have a flame deflector?

hypercube33 3y ago
I believe so. It also has some water cooling thing that sprays the pad

ironyman 3y ago

- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)

mechhacker 3y ago
Wonder if hot staging caused issues with both vehicles or it was two separate issues.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  I could believe that hot staging might've affected the booster, since it seemed to blow up right as it tried to light the engines again for boostback. But I don't think the ship would've made it so long if it were seriously damaged by the hotstaging.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Damage to the grid fins mechanism is a potential failure mode here. Even a small amount of damage to the flight control systems could make the procedure uncontrollable and eventually trigger the FTS.
    - anovikov 3y ago
      At this altitude, the vehicle is pretty much in the vacuum and grid fins have absolutely no control authority. It could have resulted in failure later on but not at that point where the booster blew up.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Saw that Scott Manley video that came out right after that and it looks like fuel issues to engines probably caused it. All but one engine started up, but they started failing after that. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac

mongol 3y ago

What is the benfit of hot staging?

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Maintaining velocity / acceleration.
idlewords 3y ago
Fantastically cool explosion
mpweiher 3y ago
Their previous method didn't work at all.
martindevans 3y ago
Less time spent not firing engines, no need for separation hardware (e.g. hydraulic pushers), no need for ullage thrusters (settling fuel before lighting stage 2).
aw1621107 3y ago
To expand on KennyBlanken's answer: Rockets generally want their fuel to be sitting on the bottom of the tank, where the engines are. That's easy enough when the rocket is sitting on the ground and when the engines are firing, but once the rocket starts coasting/decelerating (e.g., when the engines turn off due to reaching the end of their burn) the fuel may drift away from the fuel intakes, resulting in the engines ingesting vapor/gas the next time the engines turn on. Rocket engines are designed with a pretty specific operating environment in mind, so ingesting vapor/gas instead of fuel usually leads to the engines expressing their displeasure in a very vocal fashion. This poses a challenge for staging. The naive way to stage is to turn off the previous stage's engines then ignite the next stage's, but the time between the first set of engines turning off and the second set of engines reaching a sufficient thrust level to keep the fuel at the bottom of the tanks may be enough for the fuel to drift away from the fuel intakes, especially if staging occurs lower in the atmosphere or after an extended coast period. One way of addressing this issue is to use "ullage thrusters" - small rockets that maintain a small amount of forwards acceleration during staging to keep the fuel at the bottom of the tanks. This is what the Saturn rocket did between the first/second stages. Another way is to "hot stage" - ignite the new set of engines before the old ones cut out. This is what the Soyuz does (and is why its stages are connected with a lattice - to let the exhaust out), and is what Starship was trying out this time. This can be simpler than using ullage motors since there are fewer pieces, but also poses some additional challenges in that the first stage needs to survive the second stage's exhaust for long enough. The last way is to use RCS thrusters for a period to settle the fuel. This was used by the Saturn third stage before trans-lunar injection, but can really only be used once you're in orbit.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

baq 3y ago

Can't wait to see if the pad survived! If it did, they might make another attempt sooner than expected.

HPsquared 3y ago
Definitely did better than last time!
dotnet00 3y ago
It appears to have fared much better at least in terms of the metric that the various streaming cameras near the site that were damaged last time are fine this time.

dotnet00 3y ago

Really surprised by how the Raptors performed! Genuinely didn't expect that they'd have them all lighting up properly already.

XorNot 3y ago
Yeah that stood out to me too. Hopefully they'll drop some info on what the metrics said, but that looked like a full healthy set to me.
mjamesaustin 3y ago
Yeah this is a huge positive. Perfect performance of all 33 engines, up until the boost back anyway.
- ben_bai 3y ago
  I think the engines worked perfectly. The booster broke up in the middle, at least it looks like it on the everyday astronaut feed.
pelorat 3y ago
I believe this flight used the old Raptor engines, and not the new simplified ones.
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  Pretty sure they used Raptor V2 which simplifies from V1; Raptor V3 I believe is simpler still, but that's still being tested at the SpaceX MacGregor TX facility.
le-mark 3y ago
No green hue is the flame is definitely a good thing, considering the first few flights the Raptors clearly consumed themselves!

theyinwhy 3y ago

[flagged]

theyinwhy 3y ago
Everyone downvoting is hopefully aware that Tesla is doing this exact thing with their autopilot. "10 active lawsuits going to court next year" [0]. But let's all trust Elon to do a better job when roadtrips become spacetrips. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/tesla-autopilot-crash-analysis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/t...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  My biggest objection to autopilot (beyond the misleading branding) is that other drivers and pedestrians haven’t consented to the beta testing that might kill them. I think this is a serious ethical and regulatory failing. Someone hopping in a rocket presumably knows what they’re signing up for, and I have a lot more confidence in the FAA; they seem to be a lot stricter on safety.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Pedestrians didn't consent to human drivers either. The general public also didn't consent to any other human activity that could kill them in general. So that's a line that gets trotted out for self driving, but not one that is really used for anything else.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Human drivers aren't "in beta". I know there are human drivers when I'm crossing the crosswalk. I don't know which ones have delegated to a beta self-driving app.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        Do you know when they're using an app on their phone while driving though? Because safety is the crux of the issue, and human drivers are notoriously terrible at driving. Having lost a friend on the first of the year to a driver who didn't stop, human drivers are drunk, distracted, and falling asleep at the wheel. They're not in "beta" only because they're not computer programs. That doesn't mean they're not absolute menaces though.

yarekt 3y ago

Impressive, but does anyone know where will the debris from the second stage re-enter?

kortilla 3y ago
The flight termination system detonated the ship so it was blown into small enough pieces that they all likely burned up on reentry. Might find a heat tile at the bottom of the gulf.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
reportingsjr 3y ago
A rough estimate from Jonathan McDowell (well known for tracking lots of space objects and launches) is that the debris landed north east of the Turks and Caicos islands. https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725873032244195495 https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725873032244195495 Edit: a newer update shows direct evidence of the debris field area https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725917544114974995#m https://nitter.net/planet4589/status/1725917544114974995#m

kaiwen1 3y ago

It’s astounding that until very recently it was standard practice to put humans on top of untested, first-of-kind rockets.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
Well, to be fair, NASA is much more risk-averse than SpaceX. That’s why everything takes so much longer, the “classic” way. But the way SpaceX does things, gets seriously good results, quite quickly (and gives us some great videos of stuff getting blowed up).
- cryptonector 3y ago
  I think it's the other way around. NASA flew the shuttle 135 times and lost two of them, but they kept going after the first failure. And both failures followed NASA being advised of the root cause before the orbiters' destruction, and NASA management ignored the advice. Meanwhile the safety track record for Falcon 9 exceeds that of the shuttle, and it exceeded it before humans were put on top of Falcon 9. The Apollo program did very few launches and yet they put humans on top of it. No, I think what you might say is that NASA in the 60s cared a lot less about safety than SpaceX do today, though perhaps NASA today cares a lot more about safety than NASA 20 years ago (and definitely than 60 years ago).
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    Lip-service to safety versus actual safety that looks unsafe. I deal with bureaucracies a lot and this is how they do everything: it has to look good, but they don’t actually care to make things good. E.g.: fill out a ton of paperwork about how secure the web application is against hacking, but nobody reviews the source code for vulnerabilities. Or they fill out the paperwork and report the app as “secure” even when third parties like me are listing vulnerability after vulnerability. The report is what mattered, not reality. OFFICIALLY, on paper, the Shuttle was very safe.
    - cryptonector 3y ago

Geee 3y ago

That was a beautiful launch. Would love if someone filmed in HDR to see the brightness and hue of the exhaust more accurately.

pdar4123 3y ago

I have loved watching space x launches for years. And here I am, scrolling around on my phone and I can’t for the life of me find a stream that opens- this is just so sad

ge96 3y ago
You could watch someone's capture on YT, I didn't wake up in time myself dang.
dmix 3y ago
At 2:30 https://www.youtube.com/live/A8Z9LUX7fg0?si=r3brlpnVw5xoAgr_ https://www.youtube.com/live/A8Z9LUX7fg0?si=r3brlpnVw5xoAgr_

haspok 3y ago

Even Thunderfoot was impressed: https://www.youtube.com/live/BLlctxJnxy8?si=4NOk13foG-cIPbQL&t=3658 https://www.youtube.com/live/BLlctxJnxy8?si=4NOk13foG-cIPbQL...

panick21_ 3y ago
Seening that idiot be linked on HN makes me sad.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nurettin 3y ago

Overall it looked like a good launch. But I think the world ended up with a bunch of space debris at around 150 km above earth, which will eventually come down (hopefully won't land on someone's head, or backyard), since it wasn't travelling at orbital velocity.

kortex 3y ago

What is the sudden change in the exhaust plume at occurs here [1] at 149km / 17650 kph? I believe that's squarely in the thermosphere, and there aren't any step changes in temperature/pressure at that point that I'm aware of. It would make sense if that were near the mesopause, but that's around 100km. Maybe it's something on SpaceX's side of things, a change in the burn profile? Perhaps it's related to losing the Starship about a minute later. [1] https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?t=446 https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?t=446

oliv5900 3y ago
According to Scott Manleys video, it seems like an oxygen leak. You can see below that from that point onwards, oxygen depletion rate increased. Maybe this lack of oxygen led to the engines flaming out early, triggering the AFTS.
jdworrells 3y ago
I think what you are seeing is a sudden burst of poorly combusted and/or unburned fuel as the engines are cut off. The engine telemetry indicators in the bottom right of the screen show engines off shortly after the plume.
lutorm 3y ago
Yeah, this is a good question. It could be from the engines, but nothing should change at that point that I can think of, since it's well before shutdown. It might also start to vent something, intentionally or not. I hope they tell us.

wly_cdgr 3y ago

Seems like a solid B, yes?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ridgeguy 3y ago

Starship re-entering over Puerto Rico: https://twitter.com/eliassob/status/1725871782186381474 https://twitter.com/eliassob/status/1725871782186381474

moffkalast 3y ago
Or what's left of it, anyway.

yodsanklai 3y ago

I understand that having these prototype rockets blow up may be a cost-efficient way of improving the design. However, I still wonder how much of that was really expected, and what it says about the project progress. Also, how many successful launches will they consider enough before putting people's life at risk. I wouldn't feel super confident going into that rocket after having seen it blow up many times.

chrisco255 3y ago
The Falcon 9 rocket started off the same way. They blew up on launch and on landing multiple times early in its development, but has now become perhaps the most reliable and certainly the most reusable rocket model in history, with hundreds of launches per year now with no incidents.
mlindner 3y ago
The first planned use for Starship will likely be launching Starlink satellites. And there's no immediate plans to directly launch with humans on board. I'd personally ballpark that there will be well over 20 launches before anything regarding humans is considered.
chriswarbo 3y ago
It seems like the ship was terminated due to being off-course (which couldn't be corrected once its propellant was burned through). It succeeded in reaching space, it seemed to reach almost-orbit (they deliberately made it slightly slower, to avoid becoming a giant piece of space-junk if they happened to lose contact/control), so they've almost got it working as a traditional rocket. All of the crazy stuff they're planning, like returning and catching the booster, having the ship re-enter and land/get-caught, in-orbit refuelling, etc. will probably take a while to get right; but those are all "bonus features" that other rockets/companies don't bother with. I imagine it will be launching satellites pretty soon (next year?), at least in-house Starlinks, since refuelling, re-entering, landing, etc. can be done after the payload is safely deployed; and returning/catching the booster only takes place after safe separation (as we saw today, when the ship kept going after the booster's spectacular demise) It will take a while to human-rate it. I imagine we'll start by seeing crews transferring to Starships that launch uncrewed (e.g. like the HLS for Nasa); eventually we'll probably see crew launch, once it's established a decent track record. I'm unsure if we'll ever see people in the landing flip; I'd rather eject beforehand and parachute down!

Kennethcosta 3y ago

[dead]