←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
terramex ◴[] 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 #
TechTechTech ◴[] No.42732121[source]
Where will this debris land? Can it impact airplane routes?
replies(3): >>42732173 #>>42732200 #>>42732276 #
mh- ◴[] No.42732276[source]
https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1880032865209184354

>Commercial flights are turning around to avoid potential debris.

replies(2): >>42732355 #>>42732372 #
ricardobeat ◴[] No.42732372[source]
That sounds... unlikely, to say the least. The ship blew up at 145km altitude over Turks and Caicos. Debris would fall thousands of kilometers to the east, if anything survives re-entry.

EDIT: at these speeds, over 20000km/h, the falling debris will travel a very long way before coming down. For satellite re-entry, the usual estimated ground contact point is something like 8000km+ downrange [1]. There is little chance debris would come anywhere near commercial flight altitude in the area around where the videos were made.

Apparently the planned splashdown was in the Indian Ocean near Australia, but this being an uncontrolled re-entry it could be far off from that, in either direction.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457652...

replies(6): >>42732424 #>>42732458 #>>42732459 #>>42732540 #>>42732720 #>>42741744 #
Retric ◴[] No.42732458[source]
Arlines are extremely cautious around these kinds of one off events.

It’s not about the calculated risks, but the uncertainty around if they have the right information in the first place. Sure it may have broken up at 145km miles, but what if someone messed up and it actually was 14.5km etc.

replies(2): >>42732464 #>>42732716 #
dmurray ◴[] No.42732716[source]
No, airlines do not build in a safety factor sufficient to cover an important measurement being off by a factor of 10.

They don't ground flights because the pilot might load 2,000 litres of fuel instead of 20,000 litres. They don't take evasive action in case the other plane is travelling at 5,000 knots instead of 500 knots. They don't insist on a 30-km runway because the runway published as 3 km might only be 300 metres.

replies(4): >>42732814 #>>42733000 #>>42734628 #>>42740390 #
1. Retric ◴[] No.42733000[source]
You misunderstood what I’m saying. Airlines have systems to validate the amount of fuel loaded and currently aboard aircraft that have been battle tested across decades including fixes due to past issues etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

They don’t have that level of certainty around what altitude a rocket exploded, or other one off event.

replies(1): >>42733092 #
2. ◴[] No.42733092[source]