10 ms·
SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight
- valine 3y agoAltogether, it was a terrific flight and a big step forward for the Starship program. The biggest success was the survival of stage zero, which bodes well for a quick turnaround for the next flight. Hot staging was the second big success, and Starship got to space. The flight termination was disappointing, but the actual functioning of the FTS system seems to be fixed. That was a problem with the first flight and should make the FAA very happy.
- qiine 3y agoSad we didn't get any shot from the Starship onboard camera during reentry.
- thelittleone 3y agoStarship didn't do re-entry though right? They lost signal, and what happened after that was not explained. It was at the target height and >24,000km/h when it lost signal. Some coverage suggested SECO happened, they they lost signal.
- haarts 3y agoSECO = Second stage Engine CutOff.
- datameta 3y agoAt the conclusion of the SpaceX stream they confirmed the automated launch abort system triggered with vehicle lost. But so much data gained!
- euroderf 3y agoI hope that future mission commanders will never ever let control forget that someone mistakenly kaboomed an upper stage.
- MatthewElvey 3y agoYeah, me too. There were onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy. Hopefully they'll release more footage and info over time. Even the first launch had some. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12claay/the_known_onboard_cameras_on_starship_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12claay/the_k.... I recall the during the SpaceX audio commentary of this morning's launch (but perhaps EverydayAstronaut's) it was mentioned that onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy would be attempting to communicate via Starlink for the first time.
- sertbdfgbnfgsd 3y agoIsn't reentry supposed to be the hard part? How was this a success?
- chpatrick 3y agoAll of those are very hard.
- valine 3y agoThe largest rocket ever built just got to space for the first time. Even without re-entry this is a milestone. They have a production line to build these things. They’ll roll out the next one and try again. It’s not like SLS where everything is expected to work perfectly.
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- gregjor 3y agoI guess that’s one way to define success or a milestone. The Saturn V used for the Apollo program had different criteria, like not blowing up and having all engines ignite. Now that we have the person who knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive in charge I’m sure these glitches will get sorted out.
- godzillabrennus 3y agoIt’s nice when you have the backing of a super power nation and their blank check to do it vs having shareholders.
- aik 3y agoAmazing the effect competency has when trying to win a blank check away from others.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
- mattsan 3y agoThe second big success was all 33 engines working reliably all the way up! There were so many nay-sayers saying if the soviets could build those amazing engines but couldn't solve their flameout problem on their N-1 rocket that Superheavy was never going to work
- johnyzee 3y agoLooking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.
- gavinray 3y agoI don't understand what makes the functioning of all the engines so difficult (I know nothing about rockets). How is it that you build something so expensive with so many development resources and expect parts to fail?
- NOT_RICK 3y agoLots of vibration and heat on what is effectively a massive bomb. And more engines means more parts that can potentially break.
- parsimo2010 3y agoIt’s literal rocket science. Liquid fueled rockets have to work in basically the most extreme environments we’ve ever made machines work. Extreme cold temperatures through extreme hot and from extreme high pressures through vacuum. You have to have the best metallurgy and amazing machining tolerances. And then on starship they got it to work more than thirty times simultaneously.
- gavinray 3y agoSure, but if one works, why wouldn't the rest? It's like saying "we built a car engine, but every 33rd car we make the engine doesn't" work. That's not a very good engine. Also, not sure why I am getting downvoted for saying I don't understand something and asking other people how it works.
- slenk 3y agoI don't understand why people are celebrating failed rocket launches. Apollo 4, the first time the full Apollo Saturn V rocket stack was assembled, did not blow up on the first attempt to space. That is something to celebrate. Now wasting millions of government dollars from subsidies, which in the end comes from citizens. We should not be celebrating failure.
- fragmede 3y agoBecause, even in failure, there's progress. "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" is often attributed to Edison, without whom, we wouldn't have the lightbulb. In order to make progress, you need to try. And if you never fail, you're not trying hard enough. Would it be better if it hadn't failed? Absolutely. But better to try and fail than never try.
- slenk 3y agoWhat bothers me is that they don't even try to succeed. They only want liftoff - they don't seem to care about the ever important orbital aspect
- avhon1 3y agoWhy don't you think they're trying to succeed? They got very close to orbit today, much closer than many prototype rockets do. Just earlier this year, Japan's new rocket also failed to achieve orbit. Its second stage just didn't ignite at all. Starship got closer to orbit than that today. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-launch-of-japans-large-new-rocket-fails-after-a-second-stage-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-launch-of-japans... The Soviet N1 rocket never even got past first stage separation, in 4 launches. They got closer every time, but after the 4th stage blew up during main engine cut-off, they canceled the program, and never flew a cosmonaut beyond low-earth orbit.
- MatthewElvey 3y agoI think most people don't understand the concept of if you want to succeed, fail faster. It's valid (and explained well and often) but counterintuitive. (And with mundane tasks, it's less applicable, as with them, it's reasonable to expect that when competent people attempt them, they generally get done correctly.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ABeeSea 3y ago[flagged]
- modeless 3y agoI'm disappointed there won't be a test of the heat shield, but it's definitely a successful test. All engines lit and the new "hot staging" stage separation was seemingly successful, despite the explosions later on. Can't wait for the next one!
- datameta 3y agoSimilar reaction, I was hoping to see the heat shield tested on re-entry but a successful hot staging was a huge milestone. Also they didn't absolutely devastate the launch pad thanks to the launch deluge system!
- pixl97 3y agoScott Manley has a short up on booster engine relight issues after hot staging https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac
- rkagerer 3y agoThis is a really good video, I didn't initially catch what was going on in the grid of rocket indicator icons.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ooterness 3y agohttps://archive.is/k459Q https://archive.is/k459Q
- workfromspace 3y agoThis version seems to be incomplete. Here is more recent and complete version: https://archive.ph/aN2dV https://archive.ph/aN2dV
- rossdavidh 3y agoIt totally decided I was a robot. After my third "check all the boxes with..." I gave up.
- mckirk 3y agoI'm sorry you had to find out this way...
- TheCleric 3y agoYeah the person/people who run archive.is doesn’t like certain DNS providers (CloudFlare, Apple) and this is what happens when you use one. Happens on my phone every time.
- persnickety 3y agoDNS providers? How would they find out which DNS provider I'm using to find their addresses?
- gregjor 3y agoWhat does this mean for the crewed mission to Mars next year?
- hnarayanan 3y agoIt means I’m confident and signed up.
- i8comments 3y agoWhy are you confident?
- hnarayanan 3y agoI wasn’t at all being serious.
- Hamuko 3y agoShort flight time.
- IceDane 3y ago[flagged]
- SteveNuts 3y agoHumans have willingly volunteered for this type of mission since the beginning of our species. It's part of who we are. The people that will go, will fully understand there's no coming back.
- tropicalbeach 3y agoIt's cool thats why there needs to be no other reason.
- gregjor 3y agoYou can expect a thermonuclear lawsuit on Monday for defamation.
- jug 3y agoWow, still, while the booster was lost that much success must have given them so much more data.
- jebarker 3y agoThe details of how they stream all the data down in real-time reliably must be really interesting
- chrisweekly 3y agoYes, this is what I've been hoping the HN crowd will elicidate.
- jakeinspace 3y agoTelemetry isn’t too hard to send down during launch, at least for the booster stage. It’s really only when you have hot plasma buildup in front of the vehicle that’s a problem for RF, which is mainly on reentry.
- mlindner 3y ago"Loses" is kind of an incorrect way to talk about the launch. The flight made great progress and was just shy of orbital velocity (it was over 24,000 km/hr and orbital velocity is around 24,500 km/hr for a low orbit). Keep in mind that the goal of this launch wasn't to carry any payload. It was to get data and further iterative development. People here, especially, should understand how iterative development works.
- Dalewyn 3y agoI'm not really surprised at their choice of words, the mainstream narrative is that Elon is evil after all. Even here, the detractors are coming out of the woodwork to complain about success. At least we get to mine salt from their tears, I guess?
- conception 3y agoThere are no good billionaires.
- mulcahey 3y agoLoren is a bad reporter
- radu_floricica 3y agoFair point - they didn't even plan a landing for the Spaceship, just a splashdown in the Pacific, so the plan was always to "lose" it. And it was well on track for that, it reached target height and already fired about 90% of its fuel. The only thing it didn't get to test was the heat shield, but there'll be plenty of other chances. I'm sorry about the booster tho. But overall it's hard to consider this anything other than a great success.
- agumonkey 3y agoany footage of the splashdown ?
- 3y ago
- neverrroot 3y agoIn spite of this, it was still a great success.
- jetrink 3y ago> SpaceX Loses Starship Spaceraft During Test Flight It's really a glass half empty headline, isn't it? It's like if someone got bronze at the Olympics and the headline were, "Athlete loses to multiple opponents, fails to get gold or silver medal."
- allenrb 3y agoI was thinking “glass 1/5th empty” but yeah. Imho this sort of reporting and belief among the general populace is a big part of why rocket-builders have been afraid of the iterative approach since what, the mid-1960s?
- dylan604 3y agoI mean, second place is the first loser after all. The only thing left after bronze is participation trophies for all the athletes, because they all did try really hard.
- grecy 3y agoYou make it sound like you'd be disappointed to compete in the Olympics and not get a medal, rather than being immensely proud of your achievement at being in the ~top 10 in the entire world!
- dylan604 3y agoquite the opposite. i'm tired of the concept "there are no losers" and everyone deserves a reward. life is harsh, and teaching that at younger ages is better than soft selling the concept of losing so that it's a harsh slap in the face later in life.
- 3y ago
- 0xDEF 3y agoThe engines on the first stage did well in this test. During the first test they were malfunctioning like crazy.
- CrazyStat 3y agoProbably related to the tons of rocks and dirt thrown up during excavation of the surprise flame trench during the first test.
- JshWright 3y agoI think the only one who was surprised by that outcome was Elon.
- dylan604 3y agoIt was very shocking to see that they didn't have one. It's not like this was one of those secret things that NASA has done that prevents others from having success. As recently as during SLS ramp up, I remember articles covering the testing of the deluge system for SLS. They talked about how many gallons per second, and the total amount of water necessary, and all of the other blah blah blah details that a non-rocket scientist like me read and was aware of being something necessary. The fact that SpaceX did not have this was quite laughable. Like nobody ever at SpaceX raised a hand in a meeting to bring up this issue, or it was brought up but then slapped down with a "let's don't be silly" type of response? I think the latter would be worse than the former.
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- gregjor 3y agoI’m old enough to remember the Apollo program. Not one Saturn V blew up on launch. I guess we had a different notion of “success” back then.
- dave78 3y agoI think it was more that we had a different notion of how much money we were willing to spend on it back then.
- double0jimb0 3y ago[flagged]
- allenrb 3y agoYes, in exchange for an investment that constituted a non-trivial portion of the GDP of a superpower near the peak of its trajectory. There’s a reason words like “unsustainable” are so often associated with the Apollo program. It was amazing, but it couldn’t be a model for continued progress.
- rossdavidh 3y agoI think "mixed" would be a better term, but the explosion was, IIUC, the built-in "destroy this rocket because something is going wrong" system, and I'm not sure if we even had those back in the Apollo days ("not sure" in the literal sense, maybe we did and I just never heard about it).
- awestroke 3y ago[flagged]
- glitchcrab 3y agoQuite. Even as someone who very much dislikes and distrusts Musk, you cannot argue with the success of Spacex
- snypher 3y agoPlease leave your personal attacks elsewhere.
- allenrb 3y agoWorth noting, the first stage flight probably constitutes the most powerful machine ever successfully operated by humankind, no? (A fusion bomb generates more power for a minuscule period of time, but that sort of competes in a different class.)
- IAmGraydon 3y agoYes in terms of thrust, it’s almost double the nearest competitor, the SLS. SLS generates 8.8M pounds while the Starship generates 16.7M pounds.
- TT-392 3y agoWouldn't its nearest competitor be the N1 rocket? That thing did have some liftoffs.
- IAmGraydon 3y agoYes you’re probably right, it had just slightly more thrust than the SLS, at about 9M pounds.
- mkl 3y agoN1 had half the thrust of Starship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_heavy-lift_launch_vehicle#Comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_heavy-lift_launch_vehicl... Nothing else comes close, even planned ones that aren't operational yet.
- TT-392 3y agoI didn't say N1 came close to starship, just that it was closer than SLS
- Retric 3y agoDepends on what you consider a machine, the largest power grids are more powerful. Though those are arguably multiple devices acting together not a single device. Most powerful local machine that’s close to steady state is probably Three Gorges Dam at 22.5 GW. Starship is like a top drag racer where it’s quickly damaging itself in normal operation, but it’s the most powerful local machine that can last for over a minute. However, there’s a lot of pulsed devices that briefly get to much higher energy levels like artillery or experiments that charge capacitor banks for massive discharges like Z machine which briefly hits 300TW.
- qzx_pierri 3y ago[dead]
- pxmpxm 3y agoI must be the only one that can't stand the laugh track equivalent they keep pushing into their launch videos. Just reeks of tacky marketing.
- ralfd 3y agoI guess so? I like it because it shows that thousands of engineers are rooting for their their work. Aside, the stream itself is marketing, they are not required to broadcast launches.
- modeless 3y agoA "laugh track" sometimes implies fabrication, but the cheering is real from live microphones in their facilities where employees are gathered to watch the launch.
- wyldfire 3y agoThis launch was in Boca Chica? Where can I see the future schedule of launches. I'd like to consider attending one in person.
- jurmous 3y agoThey only announce it days in advance as the road closures are announced. Also it is good to follow the developments around testing of a new rocket to know how close they are to flying. They go through the same stages of stacking and testing. It will likely take months until a third flight.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThere goes another 39 raptor engines. Great success!
- singularity2001 3y ago“rapid unscheduled disassembling”
- the_third_wave 3y agoThis was mostly a success as far as test flights of experimental rockets go: it left the platform (which remained intact), it cleared the tower, continued on the set course, made it past stage separation and the second stage made it close to orbital speed and as such gave proof of the validity of the concept once the wrinkles have been ironed out. As predictable the news media - most of which seem to have an antipathy against anything related to Musk, most likely due to ideological differences between their staff and Musk himself - present the launch as "a failure", "a flop", "a disaster", "a fiasco" and more of the like. This goes for nearly all of the ones I sampled ranging from the likes of CNN to places like Sweden's "Dagens Nyheter". As to whether this misrepresentation is due to them not understanding the expectations of test launches like these or in an(other) attempt to tar-and feather another Musk enterprise is unclear but I find it hard to believe that these institutions do not have the facts at hand to honestly report on such tests.
- the_third_wave 3y agoAgain to the downvoters: instead of trying to get an opinion counter to your own greyed out tell us why you do not agree. Let's hear it, what did I get wrong? Certainly not the twisted media reporting on this launch as that is plain as daylight, visible for anyone who cares to look. What, then? [ apparently click that down-arrow again... ]
- alphabettsy 3y agoMaybe it’s your own biases at work as well. The major publications I frequent including the NYT talk about it as being progress even with the explosion and seem very neutral if not hopeful and positive. NYT: “The journeys of Starship’s two parts ended in separate explosions. But the engineers at Elon Musk’s spaceflight company overcame problems that marred the rocket’s first flight in April.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/science/spacex-starship-launch.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/science/spacex-starship-l...
- 38321003thrw 3y agoCompare: Successful test of Starship’s two stages ended in explosions, making progress over the initial test flight in April.
- rurban 3y agoPardon, what is a space raft?
- synecdoche 3y agoThe stream clouds created initially on launch were replaced by dust clouds. Where did that dust come from? I wonder how much damage was done to the launch pad this time.