284
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.
He does force them to cut corners for the sake of more headlines though
Which is why I'm nervous for when they decide to start doing manned flights.
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.
And what of worker safety at Space X?
It's not the rocket or the engineering I'm concerned about, it's the push to meet deadlines at the expense of safety.
You literally said you were concerned for manned flight in your last comment. So originally it was the rocket and engineering you were concerned about.
I said I was concerned because of the corner cutting, which isn't an engineering problem
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Perhaps it’s time for titles that match the article headlines as a matter of policy here?
Actually, I just realized the poster may have used the original CNN title.
That is precisely what happened. I use the title that gets pulled when you paste in a URL.
That is already the rule. CNN changed the headline after I posted it.
… 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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
He did insist they slap an X on it tho. Thats gotta be worth something, right.
load more comments
(13 replies)
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:
- Successful ignition and control of 33 raptor engines in first stage.
- 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)
So, actually kinda successful.
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.
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
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.
A user in another thread pointed out that during relight, not all engines lit, and the ones that did started going back out.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
What a shitty title. The launch was an absolute success.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Did he blame the Jews for it blowing up?
Well that tweet is being composed with the aid of kilos of ketamine as we speak
The space lasers took it out probably
lol: “experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly”. That’s one way to describe it!
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.
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.
It weirds me out how many people want to get a brain implant done by a company of this guy
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)
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
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.
I wonder what the simulation showed was going to happen compared to the actual flight. Would give you a real metric of progress.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Here's the everyday astronaut livestream of the launch: https://www.youtube.com/live/6na40SqzYnU?t=27150
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
284 points (90.6% liked)
News
23627 readers
3036 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS