←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 2 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
dpifke ◴[17 Jan 25 01:58 UTC] No.42733260[source]▶
Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880060983734858130

replies(6): >>42734284 #>>42734474 #>>42736814 #>>42739574 #>>42740417 #>>42741622 #
coldtea[dead post] ◴[17 Jan 25 05:06 UTC] No.42734284[source]▶
[flagged]
razemio ◴[17 Jan 25 05:52 UTC] No.42734489[source]▶
Can you name a space company with less failures? Also I think it is unfair to even compare SpaceX to anything else, because of the insane amount of starts / tests combined unparalleled creativity.

According to this website their current success rate is 99,18%. That's a good number I guess? Considering other companies did not even land their stages for years.

https://spaceinsider.tech/2024/07/31/ula-vs-spacex/#:~:text=....

replies(2): >>42734982 #>>42735010 #
1. pyrale ◴[17 Jan 25 07:39 UTC] No.42735010[source]▶
Success rate isn’t a great metric for efficient initial work: it will keep improving as more launches are done, regardless of the initial work.
replies(1): >>42735556 #
2. HPsquared ◴[17 Jan 25 09:15 UTC] No.42735556[source]▶
There's more to "overall success" then launch failure rate. Cost and time are very important, which are the other dimensions they are optimizing for here.