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.

  • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    It seems that Starship, the second stage, experienced RUD from the automated FTS at around the time it was expected to shut off its engines.

    • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      Which is an incremental improvement over the prior attempt. People mock these failures as though they have never built anything and have no concept that any step forward is a win when you are trying to do something that has never been done before. They got the smaller rockets working. It will just take time to get this giant one working.

      • leds@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah but to get from here to a 99.99% reliability is a very very long way

        • Player2@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          Look at the Falcon rocket history. They started out at a very similar point, though at a smaller scale. And yet now they are comfortably human rated. They have landed the last 171 times in a row without fail, with another one coming this evening to add to that incredible number.

          The guy at the helm is a terrible person, but this does not discredit the absolutely insane progress they have made.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        What do you mean, never been done before?

        We had satellites in space 70 years ago.

        Delta clipper was pioneering reusable boosters in the 90’s.

        SpaceX themselves have been recovering boosters for almost ten years now. They learned nothing from that?

        I’m not saying it should work every time out of the gate, but they haven’t even reached orbit yet. And musk himself has said that starship being operational is critical to SpaceX and starlink if they don’t want the companies in serious financial trouble. So, it’s not like they’re taking their sweet time with these as incremental tests.

        • neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          Fully reusable super-heavy rockets with multiple full stage combustion engines running on Methane have been done before? You mind sharing sources because I can’t find any.

          Closest thing I can think of is the Soviet N1 rocket (about 2/3 the thrust of Starship) which the Soviets really struggled with and ended up abandoning, and it wasn’t even close to being reusable.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Didn’t the N1 have a massive launch pad failure that we still don’t know how many people it killed?

            • neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Can’t find any reference to anyone dying or getting injured, but in terms of pad damage it definitely takes the cake.

              The first Starship may have put a hole in the pad, but the N1 obliterated it.

        • Player2@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          You’re comparing the world’s first fully reusable rocket that also happens to be the world’s most powerful operational rocket to old technology? The payload capacity of this vehicle is immense. There is not a single aspect of it that isn’t brand new, from its proportions, engine power cycle, engine amount, construction materials, you can go on almost endlessly.

          These incremental tests are what allow them to move at this incredible speed. Traditional rocket development doesn’t take years, it takes decades. You have to consider that this isn’t a government trying to outcompete another one, it’s a private company. They are pushing the envelope with everything they’re doing.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        10 months ago

        What aspect of this “has never been done before”? Its a multi-stage rocket (NASA and the Soviets have been doing that for about seventy-ish years and the Nazi scientists we all recruited were doing it for even longer). The main innovations are material choice (which is debatable) and landing a rocket on a pad, which is mostly a function of having good computers.

        Space flight is hard. That said, there is a very strong argument for being much less iterative. Especially when the quest for a reusable rocket involves constant spraying of wreckage across oceans and land.

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          and landing a rocket on a pad, which is mostly a function of having good computers.

          Launching a rocket is even easier, it’s mostly a function of having a big tank of propellant and powerful engines. A big rocket ? Just need a bigger tank and bigger engines.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      RUD, aka “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly”. I love how you can make “shit blew up in a way we didn’t expect” sound so mundane.