←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 3 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 1.227s | 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 #
Alive-in-2025 ◴[17 Jan 25 17:06 UTC] No.42740417[source]▶
This sounds like one of those "and also" things. I'd say you add fire suppression AND ALSO try more to reduce leaks. It's got to be really difficult to build huge massive tanks that hold oxygen and other gases under pressure (liquid methane too will have some vapor of course). Are leaks inherently going to happen?

This is meant to be a human rated ship of course, how will you reduce this danger? I know this stuff is hard, but you can't just iterate and say starship 57 has had 3 flights without leaks, we got it now. Since I have no expertise here, I can imagine all kinds of unlikely workarounds like holding the gas under lower pressure with humans on board or something to reduce the risk.

replies(3): >>42740808 #>>42741047 #>>42743929 #
1. mavhc ◴[17 Jan 25 17:29 UTC] No.42740808[source]▶
Given that a) most human rated rockets have had 0 flights before use, and b) I'd expect each starship to have at least 10 flights, and at least 100 in total without mishap before launching, the statistics should be good
replies(1): >>42741078 #
2. wat10000 ◴[17 Jan 25 17:48 UTC] No.42741078[source]▶
I don’t think (a) is true. The Shuttle flew with people on its maiden voyage, but that’s the only one I can think of.

(b) is true and should make it substantially safer than other launch systems. But given how narrow the margins are for something going wrong (zero ability to land safely with all engines dead, for example) it’s still going to be pretty dangerous compared to more mundane forms of travel.

replies(1): >>42744714 #
3. laverya ◴[18 Jan 25 00:36 UTC] No.42744714[source]▶
Most rockets flew test flights before sticking people inside the same model, but most rockets are also single use and so each stack is fundamentally new.

A future starship could plausibly be the first rocket to fly to space unmanned, return, and then fly humans to space!