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.

207 points

I really wish they’d stop putting Musk’s name on things like this. He didn’t design the engines, he didn’t plan the flight path, he did nothing but throw a bunch of money at a company because he’s obsessed with Mars.

permalink
report
reply
117 points

He does force them to cut corners for the sake of more headlines though

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Which is why I’m nervous for when they decide to start doing manned flights.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and it used to explode like this too. It’ll be 5-10 years of successful unmanned flights before anyone rides on this rocket.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The US government has a pretty good track record on making sure astronauts don’t die.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points
*

Blame the poster. The CNN article itself doesn’t have Musk in the headline and barely mentions him at all (there is one quote near the end).

EDIT

Or maybe don’t blame the poster. From the URL and web archives, it appears CNN may have changed the title.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/18/world/elon-musk-spacex-starship-launch-scn/index.html

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Perhaps it’s time for titles that match the article headlines as a matter of policy here?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Actually, I just realized the poster may have used the original CNN title.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

That is already the rule. CNN changed the headline after I posted it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

… throw a bunch of money at a company because he ’s obsessed with Mars. wanted to justify sending money to some Russian arm dealers friends.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

what? didn’t he start SpaceX because Russia WOULDN’T take his money?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

IIRC, they wouldn’t take his money because he misunderstood the price they wanted, tried to bargain it down and lowball them, and ended up pissing them off so much they doubled the price.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He tried to buy Russian decommissioned ICBMs but the DoJ wouldn’t let him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

He did insist they slap an X on it tho. Thats gotta be worth something, right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Sadly, Thats how capitalism work hence they keep using Musk’s name. Anyone with money is valuable in our economy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-43 points

This just false. Sure, he did not do everything alone but he has a huge hand in engineering concepts and design decisions. Lots of hate and complete misunderstanding how spaceship, spaceX and Musk work in this thread.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

When Elon still wrote code it was so bad they had to scrap most of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And the one they did use ended up into a fridge’s firmware.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The dude prefers reviewing source code on paper.

Anyone who writes code knows that is not a practical way to review.

Maybe in his time he got book smart about some physics/rocket concepts. That’s the least I would expect anyway. But that doesn’t mean he really has any expertise to offer to the product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I agree it makes no sense. A fair number of my clients are morons and about 2 or 3 times a year they want a printout of the code.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points

You’re wrong. Watch some videos on starship development and the history on spacex in general.

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
-3 points

All of the data that they were recording will pinpoint the failures

Do they need data like last time with the launch pad? Where it was clear that it will desintegrate? Did that give them additional insights into how the engines react to debris doing back into them? Was that the goal all along?

Seriously, they are iterating, sure. But we already know they ignore known problems. So it is not like every explosion is necessary or helps in any way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’m not a rocket scientist, but I research complex systems. Failure is the best way to improve something, even if you know it’s going to fail, you want to see how and what are the repercussions. I’ve done so many experiments that I knew were doomed, but I still have to do them just because I wanted to see how the system is would react.

Not a fan boy of Elon by the way, not trying to defend him or anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That was really non of that. It was predictable that and how it would fail. NASA etc. solved that issue decades ago. It also created new issues, like the (protected) water table being affected. All because he wanted a certain date and cheap out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-46 points

Primary objective was things not to explode, which they did. Everything else you just said was repeated PR. Yes, it was a success, they wanted to throw hundreds of millions for no reason. More to the point, second stage blew up in low earth orbit, which is within reach of satellites. So your so called success is yet to be proven. It’s going to be weeks and months before we see the real effect of explosion propelled debris around the planet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
*

Primary objective was to get further than last time, which they absolutely did. Not only were all the engines reliable for their first burn, they tested a successful hot separation, in flight ignition, and effective flight termination system. All of this was on top of the achievements they made last time and allowed Starship to reach space for the first time, making it reach past the N1 in only two attempts.

It was a great success.

PS. No it did not explode in orbit. The actual rocket scientists did think about this you know. The flight plan featured a suborbital track, and it splashed down safely in the ocean somewhere along it’s predicted path at most about an hour after launch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Great success would be landing it. Exploding and ramming the rest of the wreckage in ocean is not a success, but I guess Musk fans will repeat everything verbatim. If someone drives a car through your house but jumps out just before it smashes. Them claiming it was a great success, initial goal was to get the car moving… hardly constitutes a success to you, does it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

So, actually kinda successful.

permalink
report
reply
52 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

We’ll see how many satellites gets damaged by huge explosion in LEO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth’s atmosphere already :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points
*

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

permalink
report
reply
18 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

…but it exploded before dinner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Taco Bell strikes again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

No it wasn’t. Absolute success would mean no explosion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

Did he blame the Jews for it blowing up?

permalink
report
reply
13 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The space lasers took it out probably

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.


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.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 19K

    Posts

  • 496K

    Comments