279

SpaceX’s Starship rocket system reached several milestones in its second test flight before the rocket booster and spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago

Alright, let me clear something up.

This is literally rocket science. The process to put humans into space is literally done this way, for this exact reason. They had two key primary objectives for this launch:

  1. Successful ignition and control of 33 raptor engines in first stage.
  2. Successful hot separation into second stage.

The first stage separated entirely and gained plenty of distance before it did explode.

The second stage flew for several minutes before the automated emergency flight termination kicked in and destroyed it.

All of the data that they were recording will pinpoint the failures in the return of the first stage, and the destruction in the second stage. They would not have that data if they did not do this test and nothing went wrong.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] WidowsFavoriteSon@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

So, actually kinda successful.

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

Actually kinda really successful 👍 All 33 engines were firing, the hot staging was successful. On both the first and second stages, it looks like the automatic FTS (flight termination system) was triggered. That would happen if it veered too far off of it's approved flight path (don't need it coming down over a populated region.) The only thing that didn't happen that I was hopeful for was atmospheric re-entry - we really need to see how that heat shield works in practice.

[-] urandom@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

If the stage exploded due to the hot staging change, perhaps it won't count as a success. But it's too early to tell either way

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Looked to me like the hot staging plus flip maneuver sent the 1st stage into a slow spin it couldn’t recover from using the ullage gas thrusters.

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

A user in another thread pointed out that during relight, not all engines lit, and the ones that did started going back out.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Scott Manley suggested the hot-stage combined with the fast flip maneuver may have caused fuel to slosh away from the intakes in the tank, leading to ingestion of gas bubbles in the fuel lines. Those would have damaged or destroyed engines as they worked their way into the turbo pumps, leading to the progressive engine-outs seen on the stream before the eventual catastrophic failure of the booster.

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm guessing they wanted to show the FTS works really good now and terminates at the first sign of something wrong. Last time it was doing those flips for quite a while.

[-] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Maybe. I would think the best FTS is the one not used ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[-] Buck@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If i had a nickel for every time this happened to me in KBS...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dimath@ttrpg.network 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What a shitty title. The launch was an absolute success.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The launch achieved most of its objectives, but it was supposed to fly farther and splash down near Hawaii. It was a success in that the 32 engines fired together, and the ship achieved separation, and there will be plenty of data about what went wrong.

But some things did go wrong, so you can't say it was an "absolute" success. Both the superheavy and the starship were lost. Rocket science is slow and expensive progress. It's only a failure if we abandon the project. But it is disingenuous to say that everything worked out as intended.

[-] s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

...but it exploded before dinner.

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Taco Bell strikes again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Did he blame the Jews for it blowing up?

[-] iamzeN123@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Well that tweet is being composed with the aid of kilos of ketamine as we speak

[-] WhyYesZoidberg@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The space lasers took it out probably

[-] Illogicalbit@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

lol: “experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly”. That’s one way to describe it!

[-] Vakbrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's no shame in highlighting what went right and still acknowledging what went terribly wrong.

Censoring the latter prevents improvements. No need for fanboyism.

[-] ashok36@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

On test flights, having something go terribly wrong is expected. This is the second test flight of a brand new vehicle system which also happens to be the largest and most complicated vehicle ever made. They also have half a dozen more vehicles already made and waiting to fly, each with improvements learned in manufacturing the previous one. They are behind their original schedule, for sure, but this mission was a huge success for SpaceX considering all of the things that did work.

[-] dumdum666@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

It weirds me out how many people want to get a brain implant done by a company of this guy

[-] vanontom@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It would be very weird, if we could verify they weren't shills or bots. Insane and desperate people. It was only "interesting" years ago, before he exposed himself as a fraud (and tortured animals during failed testing).

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pan_troglodytes@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago

eh... it looks like hot-staging still has some bugs to work out, but the 2nd stage worked just fine (and since that's the part that matters, the end fate of the first stage is irrelevant)

good test all in all

[-] neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

What bugs? At this point we don't have an explanation for the first-stage RUD, looking at the overlay it seems there were issues re-lighting the Raptors which could be for any reason.

From what I saw, the hot-staging went perfectly with the RUD happening when the ship was already in space.

[-] iterable@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I wonder what the simulation showed was going to happen compared to the actual flight. Would give you a real metric of progress.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

If the simulation showed a problem, they could have fixed it before launch. I'm guessing they don't have a enough data to make a super high fidelity integrated model for all phases of fight, so they'd break down the sections individually. But integration always brings extra challenges.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 7 points 1 year ago

Here's the everyday astronaut livestream of the launch: https://www.youtube.com/live/6na40SqzYnU?t=27150

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

To late for Indipendence Day, to early for New Year - But what a splendid fireworks!

[-] The_Jit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Explosion at T+03:20

[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Wow. Was not expecting that from the rocket.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
279 points (90.7% liked)

News

23397 readers
3575 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS