←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 8 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
olex ◴[16 Jan 25 23:19 UTC] No.42732199[source]▶
Inadvertently perfect timing for this footage. Glowing and backlit by the setting sun, against clear and already darkening evening sky... couldn't plan the shot any better if you tried.

Let's hope no debris came down on anyone or anything apart from open water.

replies(1): >>42732563 #
andrewinardeer ◴[17 Jan 25 00:06 UTC] No.42732563[source]▶
I take it if SpaceX debris hit and destroyed a boat the owner can claim damages from SpaceX?

Does international space law allow for this?

replies(5): >>42732594 #>>42732754 #>>42732900 #>>42733930 #>>42734197 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 01:02 UTC] No.42732900[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention

Only used once, when the Soviets dropped a nuclear reactor on Canada.

> States (countries) bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it was launched from State A's territory, or from State A's facility, or if State A caused the launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object.

replies(5): >>42733181 #>>42733551 #>>42733635 #>>42733776 #>>42742294 #
1. krick ◴[17 Jan 25 01:46 UTC] No.42733181{3}[source]▶
I feel like it should be updated. When it was written it wasn't like every Musk could launch high-orbit rockets on sundays. Only actual states did.
replies(5): >>42733191 #>>42733216 #>>42734342 #>>42734753 #>>42742081 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 01:48 UTC] No.42733191[source]▶
States can set whatever rules they like internally. The US can make SpaceX pay them back if they want.
replies(1): >>42733422 #
3. dragonwriter ◴[17 Jan 25 01:51 UTC] No.42733216[source]▶
The convention does not prevent national law from providing private liability which may come into play between entities subject to the jurisdiction of the same state or between the state who is liable to other states under the convention and entities operating within the state. So, there is no need to update the convention; the states from which private launches operate simply need adequate domestic law to cover both fully-internal liability and private launcher liability for claims against the government under the convention. (And the US generally does, with the basic regulatory regime being adopted and the private space launch industry operating in the 1980s; it is not an issue that arose with Musk/SpaceX.)
4. dragonwriter ◴[17 Jan 25 02:33 UTC] No.42733483{3}[source]▶
The President has very little case-by-case authority over civil liability between private parties.

I suppose Trump could advocate that Congress pass a new liability regime more favorable to SpaceX speciically or private launchers generally, though.

replies(1): >>42733499 #
5. dylan604 ◴[17 Jan 25 02:36 UTC] No.42733499{4}[source]▶
Time and time again, we have seen GOP congress critters kowtow to Trump even before he won the election. You think any of them are going to suddenly grow a backbone and stand up to him now? You think if Musk picks up the phone and starts "asking" people they will push back?
6. oskarkk ◴[17 Jan 25 05:18 UTC] No.42734342[source]▶
Every rocket flight has to be approved by the government. No launch until FAA (and also FCC) OK's it.
7. condiment ◴[17 Jan 25 06:41 UTC] No.42734753[source]▶
FAA launch licenses require substantial liability insurance. 500 million in this case.

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID17389...

8. tcmart14 ◴[17 Jan 25 19:10 UTC] No.42742081[source]▶
No expert, but I would assume, the USA would front it, but then take a case against SpaceX. So it would be Boat Owner v. USA, then USA v. SpaceX shortly after. Although I could be totally wrong.

But yea, seems appropriate to update it or if that is going to be the process, write it in stone.