←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 10 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
terramex ◴[16 Jan 25 23:04 UTC] No.42732041[source]▶
Looks like second stage broke up over Caribbean, videos of the debris (as seen from ground):

https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662?t=HdHF...

https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800

https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115

Moment of the breakup:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE52_hVSeQz/

replies(26): >>42732085 #>>42732104 #>>42732113 #>>42732121 #>>42732146 #>>42732149 #>>42732168 #>>42732199 #>>42732232 #>>42732351 #>>42732496 #>>42733020 #>>42733086 #>>42733122 #>>42733260 #>>42733477 #>>42733605 #>>42733683 #>>42733687 #>>42733766 #>>42733802 #>>42734118 #>>42734885 #>>42735676 #>>42736326 #>>42737264 #
9cb14c1ec0 ◴[16 Jan 25 23:23 UTC] No.42732232[source]▶
Given that the engine telemetry shown on the broadcast showed the engines going out one by one over a period of some seconds, I could easily imagine some sort of catastrophic failure on a single engine that cascaded.
replies(2): >>42732341 #>>42732940 #
s1artibartfast ◴[16 Jan 25 23:36 UTC] No.42732341[source]▶
It could be many things, plumbing to the engines, tank leak, ect. You could see fire on the control flap actuators, so the ship interior was engulfed in fire at the same time the first engine was out.
replies(3): >>42732579 #>>42732638 #>>42732723 #
1. consumer451 ◴[17 Jan 25 00:08 UTC] No.42732579{3}[source]▶
Given the huge spread of the debris, it must have been a decent sized boom, no? I mean that's got to be 10's of miles wide in this video.

https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115

replies(2): >>42732730 #>>42733239 #
2. walrus01 ◴[17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC] No.42732730[source]▶
the flight termination system is sort of a shaped charge that's designed to rupture the oxidizer and fuel tanks. Even if only a few % fuel remains, it'll be a big boom.
replies(2): >>42732844 #>>42732954 #
3. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Jan 25 00:51 UTC] No.42732844[source]▶
For context, The lower stage reportedly has 150 tons of propellant on board when it lands.
replies(1): >>42733977 #
4. enragedcacti ◴[17 Jan 25 01:08 UTC] No.42732954[source]▶
It wasn't FTS, it just blew up: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1880033318936199643
replies(2): >>42733512 #>>42734374 #
5. nialv7 ◴[17 Jan 25 01:55 UTC] No.42733239[source]▶
do we know when this video was taken? this could just be ship breaking up during re-entry because it lost altitude control. not necessarily the moment of the primary failure.
6. dmix ◴[17 Jan 25 02:38 UTC] No.42733512{3}[source]▶
Oh interesting, maybe that's why the debris looked so interesting
7. FuriouslyAdrift ◴[17 Jan 25 04:10 UTC] No.42733977{3}[source]▶
The whole thing (booster et al) is around 1/3 as tall as the Eiffel tower... for context
replies(1): >>42735474 #
8. oskarkk ◴[17 Jan 25 05:25 UTC] No.42734374{3}[source]▶
That doesn't explicitly say that it wasn't FTS. Activation of the FTS is never scheduled and it results in rapid disassembly. There's speculation that it flew for a significant time after losing telemetry. FTS is designed to activate if it goes off course (if it's still on course, it's better to keep flying).
replies(1): >>42734464 #
9. mrandish ◴[17 Jan 25 05:47 UTC] No.42734464{4}[source]▶
Yeah, I was wondering if it was FTS. I guess it doesn't really matter as FTS is just designed to intentionally cause the same kind of RUD that happened anyway. The main criteria is a RUD sufficient to ensure pieces small enough to burn up on reentry. From the looks of the explosion from the videos helpfully captured from the ground, the RUD certainly looked sufficient. Given it was 146km up at >13,000 mph, rolling down a window would trigger a sufficient RUD.

At those speeds, temps and pressures exploding into tiny pieces isn't just easy - it's the default. NOT exploding is much harder!

10. dotancohen ◴[17 Jan 25 09:03 UTC] No.42735474{4}[source]▶
The full stack is taller than some skyscrapers... for context.