Most active commenters
  • notorandit(3)

←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 17 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 1.245s | 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 #
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]
pmontra ◴[17 Jan 25 08:35 UTC] No.42735302[source]▶
Test flights.

My tests keep failing until I fix all of my code, then we deploy to production. If code fails in production than that's a problem.

We could say that rockets are not code. A test run of a Spaceship surely cost much more than a test run of any software on my laptop but tests are still tests. They are very likely to fail and there are things to learn from their failures.

replies(2): >>42736351 #>>42737132 #
1. notorandit ◴[17 Jan 25 11:15 UTC] No.42736351[source]▶
Running a code test doesn't require firing a rocket.

How would you test a rocket?

replies(2): >>42736539 #>>42736838 #
2. nicky0 ◴[17 Jan 25 11:43 UTC] No.42736539[source]▶
Test code by running it.

Test a rocket by launching it.

replies(3): >>42736700 #>>42736972 #>>42738188 #
3. orwin ◴[17 Jan 25 12:09 UTC] No.42736700[source]▶
In production? I don't disagree that tests 'in production' are sometimes necessary (canary tests), but most of the quirks are often fixed by then.

Honestly I thought they would be live testing fuel exchange in orbit by now. Seems pretty far from it sadly.

replies(5): >>42736867 #>>42737266 #>>42737399 #>>42737944 #>>42742919 #
4. TypingOutBugs ◴[17 Jan 25 12:30 UTC] No.42736838[source]▶
You test components in isolation, you test integration of components, you run simulations of the entire rocket, and finally you test the rocket launch.

You’ll catch issues along the way, but you can’t catch all of them before a full launch test. That’s why there are launch tests.

replies(2): >>42737059 #>>42740196 #
5. ricardobeat ◴[17 Jan 25 12:34 UTC] No.42736867{3}[source]▶
That might still happen this year, it’s the next step in the development plan.

What makes these launches “non-production” tests is that they are not carrying any valuable payload. Blowing up rockets like this is exactly what gives the company it’s advantage over competitors who try to anticipate everything during design stages.

6. penjelly ◴[17 Jan 25 12:46 UTC] No.42736972[source]▶
launching a rocket is far more analogulous to shipping a release, than it is running code.
replies(1): >>42742170 #
7. brianwawok ◴[17 Jan 25 13:00 UTC] No.42737059[source]▶
This is the programmer fallacy if you have a bunch of code passing unit tests, it’s going to work when combined.
replies(2): >>42738309 #>>42739109 #
8. pclmulqdq ◴[17 Jan 25 13:26 UTC] No.42737266{3}[source]▶
They had that on the timeline for 2023, so it's reasonable to assume they would do it.
9. emilecantin ◴[17 Jan 25 13:40 UTC] No.42737399{3}[source]▶
There was no real payload on this, so I'd argue it's closer to a QA environment than production.

It's true that other rocket companies are treating launches as production, but SpaceX has always been doing "hardware-rich" testing.

10. mr_toad ◴[17 Jan 25 14:38 UTC] No.42737944{3}[source]▶
Testing their ability to deploy satellites is a short-term goal that will make them money now. Testing refuelling will be needed for Luna and Mars missions, but that’s a long way off anyway.
11. johnla ◴[17 Jan 25 15:00 UTC] No.42738188[source]▶
I would consider these launches test launches. Production is when they include commercial payloads and humans.
12. liontwist ◴[17 Jan 25 15:10 UTC] No.42738309{3}[source]▶
Did they say that?
replies(1): >>42738502 #
13. ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 15:26 UTC] No.42738502{4}[source]▶
Boeing did, with Starliner.
14. SJC_Hacker ◴[17 Jan 25 15:57 UTC] No.42739109{3}[source]▶
Thats not what he said. Unit tests are the first stage, and are very useful at isolating the problem.

Integration tests are the next where multiple units are combined.

Then there is staging.

15. notorandit ◴[17 Jan 25 16:54 UTC] No.42740196[source]▶
This can get as far as the test plan is complete, multiply iterated under different interface conditions and thorough. And you are still relying upon the adherence of the simulated models to the physical reality.

Real tests do all of this at once with no option to escape reality.

Again, one thing is automating thorough software tests, another one is testing physical stuff.

16. notorandit ◴[17 Jan 25 19:19 UTC] No.42742170{3}[source]▶
Launching a rocket is far more complex than shipping a release.

It is more like an "all or nothing" process.

17. octopoc ◴[17 Jan 25 20:28 UTC] No.42742919{3}[source]▶
Some domains have so many different parties doing different things, you just have to test in production. Rockets are probably one of them.