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.

    • MumboJumbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months 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.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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.

  • Vakbrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • pan_troglodytes@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months 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.

      • iterable@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        So they don’t have a physicist on staff? Or several? We have known the math for rocket science for some time. What data is it they need? When even NASA in the sixties has simulators.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m sure they have tons. But we don’t know the full thermo areo dynamics at hypersonic speeds and complex geometries, especially their effect on unconventional control surfaces across huge temperature and speed ranges. Some military companies have even bought flights on electron to get high altitude hypersonic velocity data on how the air behaves in that regime.

    • neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      You do realize that SpaceX is (currently) the only manufacturer that’s trying not to dump their rockets into the ocean (or wilderness/villages in the case of Russia and China respectively), right?

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was not aware, tho it’s a bit like hanging on to your cigarette butt while coal rolling as you drive from a private jet.

        • ashok36@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not really. If anything, starship will be the most environmentally friendly space vehicle when it’s done. It runs on methalox which can be produced from CO2 and water. As long as the energy source is renewable, it can be 100% carbon neutral as a fuel. Since they’re planning to refuel in Mars, which has no fossil fuels, developing the technology isn’t really a choice. They have to do it either way.

      • Player2@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        While the mission was similar in thrust profile to an orbital one, it was not an orbital mission. The vehicle broke down and landed about an hour after launch.