8 ms·
1st stage turned around then exploded. Second stage is doing well so far. Edit had the second sentence wrong
by mechhacker 3y ago
1st stage turned around then exploded. Second stage is doing well so far.
Edit had the second sentence wrong
- geocrasher 3y agoAnd 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 agoBoth 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat new things have the rest of the industry done lately?
- kortilla 3y agoThe “rest of the industry” isn’t doing anything at all.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoIMO 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
- m_fayer 3y agoRocketlab might end up as the AMD to the Intel of SpaceX.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe industry laughed it up as Falcon 9 failed landing repeatedly. (https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ) Then they shifted to “ok but do it 10x”. They aren’t laughing now. They’ve lost as many Starships as NASA lost Space Shuttles so far, with no deaths. It’s a test program for now. Ask the “rest of the industry” about how Boeing’s Starliner is going. That’s what failure looks like.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mechhacker 3y agoThen they got the double heavy landing, which was mindblowing seeing it the first time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw3KEg6b6bE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw3KEg6b6bE
- hackeraccount 3y agoThis. Especially with NASA. The more infrequently you launch the more the expectation is that there are no failures so the more time you take to avoid failures and so it recurses into launching SLS once every year and half or taking 10 years to launch J. Webb. I understand a lot of it is politics and government spending but it would be nice if NASA could get a case of go fever every once in awhile. So long as humans aren't involved. I understand if there were more failures there'd be less money for big projects -but I think we should take the chance to see if that money would end up being spent on more smaller quicker projects.
- honeybadger1 3y agoNaysayers offer a problem for every solution, can't stand these types. This is an enormous achievement for SpaceX.
- x86x87 3y agoMove fast and break things, amiright?
- 3y ago
- cromwellian 3y agoThe rest of the industry doesn’t build dozens of ships in a massive assembly line. Blue Origin hasn’t even completed a single full test prototype ship yet. And if you go look at NASA during the Space Race era of the 60s, they blew up plenty of ships.
- hypercube33 3y agoAnd there's tons of video about V2 blowing up which is where we got our 1960s tech from
- mcpackieh 3y agoThe 1960s tech also blew up a lot as well. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICB... Blowing up lots of rockets to figure out how not to blow up rockets is traditional rocket development. The "get everything perfect the first time so it never blows up even once" tactic is forced on NASA because Congress is dumb.
- ViewTrick1002 3y agoThe rest of the industry is being wholly outcompeted by SpaceX so not sure if their assessment is anything to go by today. Or just take a look at "How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ
- mechhacker 3y agoIt's been so long that anything new has happened that it's easy to forget what it takes to move things forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
- Prickle 3y agoFailure comes before success. If you fear failure, and are unwilling to face it, then you have no business striving for success. I thought everyone here knew about this. Every software bug is a failure. Going through and squashing every one is the path to success.
- secstate 3y agoI'm not totally sure Space X cares what the rest of the industry thinks. This is next-level space engineering compared to what's come before. Who's opinions are we concerned about? ULA? Arianespace? Those companies can't even blow up a space craft successfully because they can't launch them (see, SLS, Ariane 6).
- fallingknife 3y agoI'm totally sure that SpaceX does not care what the rest of the industry (what's left of it) thinks.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago"This is next-level space engineering compared to what's come before." What an odd thing to say. Are you suggesting that Starship is next-level when compared to Saturn V? Hehe. I guess people nowadays lack any sort of historical perspective.
- panick21_ 3y agoThat a very odd thing to say. Starship is more then 2x as powerful as Saturn V. Starship is also designed for reusable. So even if you consider it non-reusable its still much more powerful then Saturn V. If 2x the size and major new features isn't 'next level' then what is? It seems you are missing current perspective and glorifying the past.
- sidibe 3y agoCome on man they did a lot better than last time. How dare you bring any negativity here
- x86x87 3y agoAre there any rules against having a different take on things?
- renewiltord 3y agoNo, but there are also no rules against being told your take sucks and downvoting bad takes is original intended behavior on this website.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- krisoft 3y ago> but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." True. The rest of the industry also can’t seem to muster a reusable orbital class first stage. So far evidence is with spacex. Their RUDy development seems to have born fruit before.
- imetatroll 3y agoThe way you dismiss SpaceX's accomplishments is just hilarious. As if you are some "insider" in the space industry. ROLF. SpaceX is awesome and inspiring in what it is doing.
- x86x87 3y agoAre we reading the same comment? I don't see any dismissal of previous accomplishments. Why is calling this failure a failure bad? You need failures to learn and hopefully be successful eventually.
- lutorm 3y agoDo you mean this was a launch failure or a test failure? It was obviously a launch failure, but even the most optimistic wouldn't have expected anything else. As for whether the test was a failure: since it successfully did a bunch of things that didn't work the last time, why would you say it's a failure? A failure would have been scattering the pad all over again, and not getting to stage sep. Or worse.
- x86x87 3y agoYou have to define upfront what you want to get from a test. After that you go back and see if what you got is what you expected. Optimistic/Pessimistic does not really matter. By this criteria, I would say failure/partial failure or partial sucess. There is no way this was a success. Also, everyone can call this what they want. The thing that grinds my gears is not respecting that other people do have a different opinion.
- hparadiz 3y agoYour opinion is wrong though. I'm sorry you can't see that. Not all opinions are right.
- hilux 3y agoThey did define what they wanted; several incremental goals, not just one. You can watch the pre-launch video to hear it for yourself. Years before Covid, my neighbor had an "opinion" that vaccines were unnecessary/dangerous, so she wouldn't get vaccinated. Just like you, she said "you have your opinion, and I have mine." In today's woke culture, that makes me the bad guy for not respecting her opinion, mansplaining, etc. But opinions don't trump facts. At least, they shouldn't
- kortex 3y agoI'm sorry, what's that, something about failure? I can't hear you over the thunderous roar of cheers from the Spacex engineering team after stage separation. https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?si=FZ30c9jmkMOmYo3n&t=180 https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?si=FZ30c9jmkMOmYo3n&t=180 Certainly doesn't sound like the folks who built the thing thought it was a failure.
- x86x87 3y agoAre the folks that build it the most objective observers? You can call a duck an eagle all day long but that does not make it an eagle.
- kortex 3y agoExcept objectively they stated ahead of time that a success would be stage separation, everything else is gravy. I had this same argument on HN after IFT-1. Folks were trying to argue that it was a failure because it blew up before orbit, when Elon was saying the whole time that just getting off the pad would be a success.
- grecy 3y ago> Are the folks that build it the most objective observers? Even the Administrator of NASA is happy with the progress. [1] Objectively, it was a success. [1] https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1725875275769028836 https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1725875275769028836
- nick222226 3y agoOnly one word for a troll, though.
- ctoth 3y agoFound the guy who works at ULA :)
- resolutebat 3y agoSuper Heavy/1st stage exploded after separation and turn. The important part, Starship/2nd stage, was doing fine but appears to have been eaten by the Space Ghoul around T+10 min.
- mechhacker 3y agoYup, typo
- Hamuko 3y agoLooks like it's not doing fine anymore.
- idlewords 3y agoIt's firing nominally on all engines up in rocket heaven
- cookingmyserver 3y ago2nd stage was terminated by the automated flight termination system right before the coast phase. Saw some interesting flaring/clouds coming from second stage engines a bit before the final big cloud.