←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 1 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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]
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 #
notorandit ◴[17 Jan 25 11:15 UTC] No.42736351{4}[source]▶
Running a code test doesn't require firing a rocket.

How would you test a rocket?

replies(2): >>42736539 #>>42736838 #
nicky0 ◴[17 Jan 25 11:43 UTC] No.42736539{5}[source]▶
Test code by running it.

Test a rocket by launching it.

replies(3): >>42736700 #>>42736972 #>>42738188 #
orwin ◴[17 Jan 25 12:09 UTC] No.42736700{6}[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 #
1. ricardobeat ◴[17 Jan 25 12:34 UTC] No.42736867{7}[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.