3 ms·

The problem is basically that we want to categorise the mission as either success or failure, and yet there was no clearly defined metric for success, so everyo

The problem is basically that we want to categorise the mission as either success or failure, and yet there was no clearly defined metric for success, so everyone defaults to "if it blows up, it's a failure". On the other hand, you clearly can't call it a complete success. There were three goals that weren't met: water-landing the booster, reaching orbit (or whatever you call where it was trying to get to), and water-landing Starship. So maybe we should think in terms of a score out of 10. Like with gymnastics, there are degrees of difficulty. SpaceX aimed very high, and delivered...ok. Maybe give them a 6/10?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
valine 3y ago
The largest rocket ever built got to space for the first time, powered by 33 full-flow staged combustion engines, considered to be the holy grail of engine design. First successful use of 33 engines firing in unison. First full-flow engine to make it to space. First methane engine to make it to space. I’ve followed starship development for a while now. A year ago starship was doomed to fail because 33 engines firing at once would tear the rocket apart. Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. I know this sounds crazy, but I think the rocket company known for landing rockets might be able to fix the rocket landing issue.
- mlyle 3y ago
  https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/chinese-company-wins-race-for-first-methane-fueled-rocket-to-orbit/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/chinese-company-wins-r...
- poleight 3y ago
  > A year ago starship was doomed to fail because 33 engines firing at once would tear the rocket apart. Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. I’m unsure what you mean by “screwed up the landing”, both stages exploded in flight. Scott Manleys analysis and reasoning seems sound: that the error was likely due to hot staging burn causing damage or being mistimed causing propellant sloshing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2C7xE9Mj4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2C7xE9Mj4 Lots of data from this launch. Definitely a successful test. Falcon failed 3 times. Looking forward to seeing if starship beats or matches or if bigger means more.
- stevage 3y ago
  >First successful use of 33 engines firing in unison. Well, fine, but that's a bit of a silly goal. I don't think there was any doubt that that would work, after the last test in which they all worked except for the ones that got damaged by concrete. Also, they were already tested on the ground, so...technically already achieved. > Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. They didn't "screw up the landing". Something went badly wrong with the booster shortly after separation. And Starship went off course. Landing both the booster and Starship isn't some small "nice to have", it's fundamental to the operation of these craft. They didn't even get a chance to test landing either part, because both failed too early.
CydeWeys 3y ago
I think it's fairest to categorize most of it as stretch goals. They knew the odds of accomplishing all of them on only the second flight ever (and first with this staging design) were quite slim, but might as well be optimistic and have a plan for the small chance that by some miracle everything does actually work out perfectly. The first Falcon Heavy flight is a good example of what it looks like on the rare occasion when it all goes perfectly. More broadly, SpaceX prioritizes low total cost and speed of development over everything else. That means they'll have more test flights than NASA and not all of them will be totally successful, and that's fine. The overall program will be.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  To be fair, nasa has had more than half a century to accumulate ‘splosions. It’s part of the job. I’m certain spacex will have a catastrophe at some point because literally every nation with a space program has had them, and they are far more safety conscious then the VC move fast and break things curse that has taken over modern tech.
  - oskarkk 3y ago
    SpaceX's Falcon 9 had two (full) failures (in 2015 and 2016), but the crazy high cadence since then made it the safest vehicle in the history of spaceflight. The next vehicle with comparable safety was the Soyuz rocket (which had various versions of the same design from the 60's, and has been launched a total of almost 2000 times!), one version of which had a streak of 112 consecutive successful launches in the 90's, but sadly Russian space program has declined since (they have more and more reliability problems). The last (major) version of Falcon 9 has 100% success rate with 225 successes out of 225 launches. NASA never before used a vehicle as reliable as Falcon 9, so... You can't compare crazy ambitious development program to established vehicles, and as Falcon 9 shows, given enough time, SpaceX can achieve something close to perfection.
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      > SpaceX can achieve something close to perfection. Question: How did SpaceX acquire all the knowledge that brought it to the Falcon 9? Answer: 70 years of NASA research as their starting point (which was built on the V2 program's learnings thanks to Von Braun). Being born on third base isn't the same as hitting a home run.
prox 3y ago
With all due respect, I think you still define it as a competition or veiled gamification. The people at SpaceX are largely all scientists, engineers and the like and they build the best they could do with available data. It got them a lot further this time based on the previous data. That is the only metric that really counts. If they got good data they can use to “debug” the rocket (to speak in HN familiar terms) that is a great thing for them, and very valuable.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Gradients are much easier to navigate than cliffs. If they get a 6/10 this time and get an 8/10 next, they can eventually make it to 10/10.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

valine 3y ago

The largest rocket ever built got to space for the first time, powered by 33 full-flow staged combustion engines, considered to be the holy grail of engine design. First successful use of 33 engines firing in unison. First full-flow engine to make it to space. First methane engine to make it to space. I’ve followed starship development for a while now. A year ago starship was doomed to fail because 33 engines firing at once would tear the rocket apart. Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. I know this sounds crazy, but I think the rocket company known for landing rockets might be able to fix the rocket landing issue.

mlyle 3y ago
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/chinese-company-wins-race-for-first-methane-fueled-rocket-to-orbit/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/chinese-company-wins-r...
poleight 3y ago
> A year ago starship was doomed to fail because 33 engines firing at once would tear the rocket apart. Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. I’m unsure what you mean by “screwed up the landing”, both stages exploded in flight. Scott Manleys analysis and reasoning seems sound: that the error was likely due to hot staging burn causing damage or being mistimed causing propellant sloshing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2C7xE9Mj4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2C7xE9Mj4 Lots of data from this launch. Definitely a successful test. Falcon failed 3 times. Looking forward to seeing if starship beats or matches or if bigger means more.
stevage 3y ago
>First successful use of 33 engines firing in unison. Well, fine, but that's a bit of a silly goal. I don't think there was any doubt that that would work, after the last test in which they all worked except for the ones that got damaged by concrete. Also, they were already tested on the ground, so...technically already achieved. > Now it’s a failure because they screwed up the landing. They didn't "screw up the landing". Something went badly wrong with the booster shortly after separation. And Starship went off course. Landing both the booster and Starship isn't some small "nice to have", it's fundamental to the operation of these craft. They didn't even get a chance to test landing either part, because both failed too early.

CydeWeys 3y ago

I think it's fairest to categorize most of it as stretch goals. They knew the odds of accomplishing all of them on only the second flight ever (and first with this staging design) were quite slim, but might as well be optimistic and have a plan for the small chance that by some miracle everything does actually work out perfectly. The first Falcon Heavy flight is a good example of what it looks like on the rare occasion when it all goes perfectly. More broadly, SpaceX prioritizes low total cost and speed of development over everything else. That means they'll have more test flights than NASA and not all of them will be totally successful, and that's fine. The overall program will be.

demondemidi 3y ago
To be fair, nasa has had more than half a century to accumulate ‘splosions. It’s part of the job. I’m certain spacex will have a catastrophe at some point because literally every nation with a space program has had them, and they are far more safety conscious then the VC move fast and break things curse that has taken over modern tech.
- oskarkk 3y ago
  SpaceX's Falcon 9 had two (full) failures (in 2015 and 2016), but the crazy high cadence since then made it the safest vehicle in the history of spaceflight. The next vehicle with comparable safety was the Soyuz rocket (which had various versions of the same design from the 60's, and has been launched a total of almost 2000 times!), one version of which had a streak of 112 consecutive successful launches in the 90's, but sadly Russian space program has declined since (they have more and more reliability problems). The last (major) version of Falcon 9 has 100% success rate with 225 successes out of 225 launches. NASA never before used a vehicle as reliable as Falcon 9, so... You can't compare crazy ambitious development program to established vehicles, and as Falcon 9 shows, given enough time, SpaceX can achieve something close to perfection.
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    > SpaceX can achieve something close to perfection. Question: How did SpaceX acquire all the knowledge that brought it to the Falcon 9? Answer: 70 years of NASA research as their starting point (which was built on the V2 program's learnings thanks to Von Braun). Being born on third base isn't the same as hitting a home run.

prox 3y ago

With all due respect, I think you still define it as a competition or veiled gamification. The people at SpaceX are largely all scientists, engineers and the like and they build the best they could do with available data. It got them a lot further this time based on the previous data. That is the only metric that really counts. If they got good data they can use to “debug” the rocket (to speak in HN familiar terms) that is a great thing for them, and very valuable.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Gradients are much easier to navigate than cliffs. If they get a 6/10 this time and get an 8/10 next, they can eventually make it to 10/10.