←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 1 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 #
dpifke ◴[] 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 #
api ◴[] No.42736814[source]
Would be unpleasant if there was crew. Of course this thing is pretty far from human eating.
replies(1): >>42736916 #
onion2k ◴[] No.42736916[source]
Would be unpleasant if there was crew.

19 people have died in the 391 crewed space missions humans have done so far. The risk of dying is very high. Starship is unlikely to change that, although the commoditization of space flight could have reduce the risk simply by making problems easier to spot because there's more flights.

replies(4): >>42737359 #>>42738117 #>>42738303 #>>42738368 #
gr3ml1n ◴[] No.42738303[source]
The higher frequency of launches seems likely to have a big impact on reliability. It's no different than deploying once per day vs once per month. The more you do it, the more edge cases you hit and the more reliable you can make it.

SpaceX also has a simplification streak: the Raptor engines being the canonical example. Lower complexity generally means less unexpected failure modes.

replies(2): >>42738483 #>>42738498 #
api ◴[] No.42738498[source]
My #1 rule for all engineering: simplicity is harder than complexity.

I truly wish more software engineers thought this way. I see a lot of mentality in software where people are even impressed by complexity, like "wow what a complex system!" like it's a good thing. It's not. It's a sign that no effort has been put into understanding the problem domain conceptually, or that no discipline has been followed around reducing the number of systems or restraint over adding new ones.

I've seen incredibly good software engineers join teams and have net negative lines of code contributed for some time.

If we ever encountered, say, an alien race millions of years ahead of us on this kind of technology curve, I think one of the things that would strike us would be the simplicity of their technology. It would be like everything is a direct response and fit to the laws of physics with nothing extraneous. Their software -- assuming they still use computers as we understand them -- would be functional bliss that directly represented the problem domain, with every state a pure function of previous state.

We might get to this kind of software eventually. This is still a young field. Simplicity, being harder than complexity, often takes time and iteration to achieve. Often there's a complexity bloat followed by a shake out, then repeat, over many cycles.

replies(3): >>42739413 #>>42739960 #>>42744000 #
1. psunavy03 ◴[] No.42739413[source]
"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

-Antoine de Saint-Exupéry