5 ms·

I get that there are multiple endpoints being tested here and some of them may have been satisfied, but I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world on hacker news

I get that there are multiple endpoints being tested here and some of them may have been satisfied, but I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world on hacker news where people are arguing that multiple failed engines, a failed stage detachment and an exploding rocket worth millions of dollars and and carrying a large number of limited supply raptor engines is a "massive success". Can we just call it for what it is? Mixed results maybe? Is that not a fair assessment?

sidibe 3y ago
Why can't you just be satisfied and just bask in the warm glow of SpaceX like the rest of this thread? In all seriousness I don't follow space stuff much so I give the benefit of the doubt when 99% of posters give rave reviews... but I also know who is in charge of this company and the same thing was happening with Tesla a few years ago with every announcement/demo getting 99% of HN people giddy and just a few shouted down people saying "but..."
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Really doesn't seem that way https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17397271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17397271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16328676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16328676 Pretty even mix of enthusiasm and doomsaying. There's even people saying that Tesla will go bankrupt and Apple will absorb them.
- Kiro 3y ago
  What's wrong with Tesla?
Kiro 3y ago
I was under the impression that none of it was ever planned to be recovered. I.e. nothing was really lost here since it would have been destroyed either way.
- mkaic 3y ago
  Well, they were hoping to possibly get a chance at soft-landing the Super Heavy Booster in the ocean, which might have allowed them to recover some stuff from it, but that was always viewed as a potential bonus, never a guarantee or even a primary goal.
  - skazazes 3y ago
    The recovery teams goal was to sink the booster even if it touched down safely. Their plan was to quite literally shoot it with small-arms until it took on enough water to sink. This is a documented best-case outcome for the launch. There were no plans to recover anything other than data
    - mwint 3y ago
      You know what this means... there was some dude in a boat this morning who was very disappointed he didn't get to shoot holes in a rocket. I would pay lots of money to have that job.
    - mkaic 3y ago
      Oh interesting, I wasn't aware! Thanks for sharing.
superultra 3y ago
I am generalizing but a lot of the space community and certainly a lot of SpaceX fans were deriding the several scrubbed launches of SLS/Artemis. I am not suggesting that it’s the exact same people, and the context for each vehicle is very different. Nevertheless both the SpaceX and NASA approaches to this are valid engineering approaches. Whether this particular failed launch is a long term success remains to be seen. If the next 5 Starship launches all explode, maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space flight.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years and another 10 billion $ on Starship. It would still be far superior to SLS. > maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space flight. Again, it has to be pointed out that SLS is not close to the same thing, its a lot of legacy tech. If SpaceX had to build a large booster auto of Falcon 9 tech they could likely design it to work on the first attempt. As they did with Falcon 9. But Starship is just a different beast. With NASA methods, it would take multiple decades to get to first test and likely never get there.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Starship is the reason why SLS and Orion should be cancelled immediately.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      I disagree. I would be in favor of canceling SLS and Orion even if Starship doesn't exist. SLS/Orion is simply the wrong architecture, and the wrong strategy. Independent of Starship or not. I have been arguing this since 2017, long before Starship was relevant.
      - 3y ago
physicles 3y ago
Yeah it does seem kinda weird. But did you see the SpaceX employees cheering like mad? It’s pretty clear that they think they made a massive step forward today. Are they deluding themselves? They’ve optimized for iteration speed and will have another couple full vehicles ready to go in a month or two. The raptor engines aren’t limited in supply; they’re making 1-2 a day. My guess is the biggest issue is the destruction of the pad. Building it up so that it doesn’t get destroyed by each launch will be a very expensive challenge.
tsukikage 3y ago
If the kickstarter got funded but didn't make any of the stretch goals, people may have hoped for more, but it's still a success.

sidibe 3y ago

Why can't you just be satisfied and just bask in the warm glow of SpaceX like the rest of this thread? In all seriousness I don't follow space stuff much so I give the benefit of the doubt when 99% of posters give rave reviews... but I also know who is in charge of this company and the same thing was happening with Tesla a few years ago with every announcement/demo getting 99% of HN people giddy and just a few shouted down people saying "but..."

renewiltord 3y ago
Really doesn't seem that way https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17397271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17397271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16328676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16328676 Pretty even mix of enthusiasm and doomsaying. There's even people saying that Tesla will go bankrupt and Apple will absorb them.
Kiro 3y ago
What's wrong with Tesla?

Kiro 3y ago

I was under the impression that none of it was ever planned to be recovered. I.e. nothing was really lost here since it would have been destroyed either way.

mkaic 3y ago
Well, they were hoping to possibly get a chance at soft-landing the Super Heavy Booster in the ocean, which might have allowed them to recover some stuff from it, but that was always viewed as a potential bonus, never a guarantee or even a primary goal.
- skazazes 3y ago
  The recovery teams goal was to sink the booster even if it touched down safely. Their plan was to quite literally shoot it with small-arms until it took on enough water to sink. This is a documented best-case outcome for the launch. There were no plans to recover anything other than data
  - mwint 3y ago
    You know what this means... there was some dude in a boat this morning who was very disappointed he didn't get to shoot holes in a rocket. I would pay lots of money to have that job.
  - mkaic 3y ago
    Oh interesting, I wasn't aware! Thanks for sharing.

superultra 3y ago

I am generalizing but a lot of the space community and certainly a lot of SpaceX fans were deriding the several scrubbed launches of SLS/Artemis. I am not suggesting that it’s the exact same people, and the context for each vehicle is very different. Nevertheless both the SpaceX and NASA approaches to this are valid engineering approaches. Whether this particular failed launch is a long term success remains to be seen. If the next 5 Starship launches all explode, maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space flight.

panick21_ 3y ago
NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years and another 10 billion $ on Starship. It would still be far superior to SLS. > maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space flight. Again, it has to be pointed out that SLS is not close to the same thing, its a lot of legacy tech. If SpaceX had to build a large booster auto of Falcon 9 tech they could likely design it to work on the first attempt. As they did with Falcon 9. But Starship is just a different beast. With NASA methods, it would take multiple decades to get to first test and likely never get there.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Starship is the reason why SLS and Orion should be cancelled immediately.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I disagree. I would be in favor of canceling SLS and Orion even if Starship doesn't exist. SLS/Orion is simply the wrong architecture, and the wrong strategy. Independent of Starship or not. I have been arguing this since 2017, long before Starship was relevant.
    - 3y ago

physicles 3y ago

Yeah it does seem kinda weird. But did you see the SpaceX employees cheering like mad? It’s pretty clear that they think they made a massive step forward today. Are they deluding themselves? They’ve optimized for iteration speed and will have another couple full vehicles ready to go in a month or two. The raptor engines aren’t limited in supply; they’re making 1-2 a day. My guess is the biggest issue is the destruction of the pad. Building it up so that it doesn’t get destroyed by each launch will be a very expensive challenge.

tsukikage 3y ago

If the kickstarter got funded but didn't make any of the stretch goals, people may have hoped for more, but it's still a success.