SpaceX’s Starship rocket system reached several milestones in its second test flight before the rocket booster and spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sounds like a proper test. But annoying that Musk’s name has to be plastered over every headline related to Xitter, Tesla Motors, Starlink and SpaceX.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s interesting. When a spacex launch goes well, you don’t see his name attached in the headline. But on this explosion, his name comes first.

      I mean, It’s all business. Disaster and Elon musk are going hand in hand since his turn into a pretty decent, hateable villain a couple years ago. So putting his name on an explosion gets the “Awfuckyeah give me musk hate porn” crowd. Even though he had almost as little to do with this failure as he did with the Hindenburg. But this gets clicks.

      It’s pretty annoying, because we can see right through it and their motives are shitty. Don’t get me wrong, Elon musk is a douchebag, but CNN’s motives for attaching his name to this article directly in the headline aren’t a mystery. And they’re selfish. So we can hate both CNN and musk at the same time. Convenient.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    So the booster worked in that it achieved lift off and properly separated. Did the other stages complete their jobs? Because this looking like it’s only a failure in the sense that the booster didn’t do the cool we-live-in-the-future part of flipping itself over and landing.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      The main focus of this test was stage separation. In that sense it was a roaring success. Also, looks like they managed not to trash the landing pad this time. So that will make it easier to get the next flight approved. But clearly there’s still a long way to go.

      • MrJ2k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Also demonstrated the flight termination systems, for both stages, it seems.

        It appears they got their engine development under control too. Every one lit and burned effectively full duration, on both stages.

        So basically they’ve fixed every issue displayed in the first flight I’d say.

          • weew@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I mean, the entire purpose of the “blow up the ship” system is to blow it up, so that part worked correctly

          • TheHotze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes, but they blew up correctly. What they are saying is it is all new issues and the old ones are fixed. This is good for test vehicles.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Just for anyone wondering what blew up correctly means. The flight termination system didn’t work properly on the 1st launch. Starship and the booster didn’t separate and it tumbled in the air for too long. That puts people at risk as it might go out of the safe area.

              This time, when whatever went wrong went wrong, the system triggered properly and both vehicles blew up.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        8 months ago

        They pick and chose what was the “focus” every time there’s a launch. In reality focus is for everything to work. It didn’t work this time either. It was worse the first time, but this time at the moment it looks better. Things worked out but second stage blew up in LEO which can cause all kinds of issues with debris and other satellites.

        • clothes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          They’ve been pretty transparent about their expectations for these early test flights, and today’s achievements match those expectations. For example, they didn’t bother securing all the thermal tiles because they didn’t really expect to survive re-entry.

          The rocket didn’t go to LEO. This was intentional, because they knew that this flight was unlikely to survive and they’re as concerned about space debris as you are. All the debris either burned up or fell into the ocean.

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            Look up what LEO region is. It’s everything beneath 2000km. But the point still stands, it was big ship with big explosion. You can’t be sure things didn’t get thrown outwards. Also, SpaceX is not exactly known for respecting the environment. In fact they’ve been constantly criticized about that.

            • clothes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              But isn’t the key aspect here “orbit”? I get that the FTS would lengthen the trajectory of some of the debris, but would it be enough to create a stable orbit? The original trajectory was going to splashdown near Hawaii.

              I certainly agree that there are lots of environmental downsides to space exploration that are increasingly overlooked, I’m just not sure that there’s anything extra egregious about this flight.

              • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Well, I don’t know if there is anything egregious about this either. Last time there was a spaceship test it was touted as a great success while tons of concrete flew in all directions destroying everything in their path from cameras to people’s cars. Most importantly launch site is in the middle of the nature’s reserve and agency in charge of that already filed a number of complaints because of their reckless destruction. “Genius” in charge said it was planed and only concrete was just fine, until it wasn’t.

                So I never trust what their PR says. Last time it was also planned and great success but they managed to get their launch license suspended. Am just not quick to jump to conclusions about whether this made any damage or not. Hopefully none of the debris managed to destroy anything.

                • clothes@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Yeah, the concrete storm wasn’t great last time. They did have some engineering reasons to believe it would work for a single launch, but it seems like there was more subsurface damage to the concrete than they realized. As far as I know the only property that was significantly damaged was related to the company, but I’m sure there were some smaller residential insurance claims for the dust.

                  Part of the reason Saturday’s launch was delayed was so that more environmental assessments could be performed. A few weeks ago there some government scientists taking samples at the launch site for a baseline measurement to compare against in the future, and the entire project was reviewed by environmental regulators. So, those agencies were very involved in approving the launch license and SpaceX can’t just do whatever the owner wants them to. I guess my point is that it’s not strictly PR-speak, there really are qualified people making these decisions. But I agree that it’s not great to have the facility in the middle of a sensitive wetland, and no doubt there was backdoor politicking. I wish SpaceX would do more to offset the harm they cause, but I still think the StarShip project does more good than harm.

    • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It seems that Starship, the second stage, experienced RUD from the automated FTS at around the time it was expected to shut off its engines.

      Edit: RUD is Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly. Basically an explosion. FTS is Flight Termination System, which explodes a rocket if something goes wrong in a potentially dangerous way.

      • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Which is an incremental improvement over the prior attempt. People mock these failures as though they have never built anything and have no concept that any step forward is a win when you are trying to do something that has never been done before. They got the smaller rockets working. It will just take time to get this giant one working.

        • leds@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah but to get from here to a 99.99% reliability is a very very long way

          • Player2@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            8 months ago

            Look at the Falcon rocket history. They started out at a very similar point, though at a smaller scale. And yet now they are comfortably human rated. They have landed the last 171 times in a row without fail, with another one coming this evening to add to that incredible number.

            The guy at the helm is a terrible person, but this does not discredit the absolutely insane progress they have made.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          What do you mean, never been done before?

          We had satellites in space 70 years ago.

          Delta clipper was pioneering reusable boosters in the 90’s.

          SpaceX themselves have been recovering boosters for almost ten years now. They learned nothing from that?

          I’m not saying it should work every time out of the gate, but they haven’t even reached orbit yet. And musk himself has said that starship being operational is critical to SpaceX and starlink if they don’t want the companies in serious financial trouble. So, it’s not like they’re taking their sweet time with these as incremental tests.

          • neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            8 months ago

            Fully reusable super-heavy rockets with multiple full stage combustion engines running on Methane have been done before? You mind sharing sources because I can’t find any.

            Closest thing I can think of is the Soviet N1 rocket (about 2/3 the thrust of Starship) which the Soviets really struggled with and ended up abandoning, and it wasn’t even close to being reusable.

            • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Didn’t the N1 have a massive launch pad failure that we still don’t know how many people it killed?

              • neveraskedforthis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Can’t find any reference to anyone dying or getting injured, but in terms of pad damage it definitely takes the cake.

                The first Starship may have put a hole in the pad, but the N1 obliterated it.

          • Player2@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            You’re comparing the world’s first fully reusable rocket that also happens to be the world’s most powerful operational rocket to old technology? The payload capacity of this vehicle is immense. There is not a single aspect of it that isn’t brand new, from its proportions, engine power cycle, engine amount, construction materials, you can go on almost endlessly.

            These incremental tests are what allow them to move at this incredible speed. Traditional rocket development doesn’t take years, it takes decades. You have to consider that this isn’t a government trying to outcompete another one, it’s a private company. They are pushing the envelope with everything they’re doing.

              • Balex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                What? 😂 This flight wasn’t supposed to go to the moon. It’s a test flight. They’re developing the most powerful rocket to have ever flown and recover every part of it. They’re also using a power cycle for the engine that has never been used before. So no, what SpaceX is doing has never been done before.

          • FlyingPiisami@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Musk is a twat but the people working at Spacex have shown themselves to be quite competent at what they do.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        RUD, aka “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly”. I love how you can make “shit blew up in a way we didn’t expect” sound so mundane.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well done to Musk and team for what most people would deem a huge success. Great to see. Really fun to watch and follow space x huge successes over the years.

    Sorry it goes against the narrative and people can’t enjoy how great this is.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m frankly impressed they got 30 methane burning rocket engines to run flawlessly like that. mind boggling how quickly it leapt off the stand. fuck musk 8 ways from sunday, but I dig spaceX, shotwell has figured out how to manage musk’s bullshit apparently and is doing great work.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        The 33 engines burning all together was really impressive to watch. The burn looked so clean and compared to the previous launch where engines where just failing on after another is was nice to see the huge progress.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I have to be able to separate the Space Baby’s idiotic antics from SpaceX. I’m simply to excited about what SpaceX is doing. My whole bloody life I’ve dreamed that we would return to space in a real fashion. This is the first time I have a glimmer of hope.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is quite the accomplishment to get to the Karman Line though so credit to SpaceX’s engineers.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      On the one hand I want to enjoy Musk failing, but at the same time I want to praise the people who are putting all their time and effort into the project, so this comment speaks to me.

      • LEX@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        8 months ago

        Really? Because I’m actually pretty pissed off that a shit load of American tax dollars went to this fuck face’s shitty corporation instead of NASA just so he could do everything as cheaply and shittily as possible and it could blow up like the dumpster fire it is as a result. May as well have had that Nazi fuck burn the money on a live Twitter feed while he laughed in our face and flipped us all off.

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          8 months ago

          You do realize that most of the money NASA has given SpaceX has been in the form of contracts to launch missions for them? I’m pretty sure very minimal tax dollars are going to Starship development right now, especially compared to other launch providers (ULA, Blue Origin, ect.) It’s because of SpaceX that America is able to launch Astronauts to space without using Russia since the Space Shuttle was retired.

          • LEX@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, I was venting. I took like a two day break lol. That guy really pisses me off.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      One of the risky things is that second stage blew up in LEO, potentially causing a lot of issues with debris. We are yet to see the real consequences.

      • llamacoffee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth’s atmosphere already :)

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 months ago

          Also to make it clear, it was never planned to even make it to LEO. SpaceX has made it very clear that they wanted to get close to the energy experienced during an actual reentry without actually making it to orbit.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    While this test was much more successful than the last one, it shows it will be at least a couple years before starship is fully operational at this rate if development and who knows when they’ll be able to get it crew rated.

    So I’m already willing to bet artemis 3 gets delayed by at least a year while starship gets developed, which is a big shame.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      But at least they’ll get there eventually. NASA so far has been entirely incapable of creating their own lander or even contract anyone who could.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What are you on about? Literally the only people to ever make a lunar lander were NASA??

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          No that one was designed by Grumman. NASA contracted with them for the design, like they’re looking to do with the new lander with SpaceX. Blue Origin and Dynetics were also options, but their proposals had huge flaws and were deemed much more risky than SpaceX, which is saying something.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        NASA so far has been entirely incapable of creating their own lander or even contract anyone who could.

        The first part of your statement is screwy: NASA doesn’t build stuff themselves, they set mission requirements. Their normal approach is to pay a contractor to design and build something to satisfy those requirements. In the case of SpaceX, the company designs and builds with (more of) its own money and then sells rides to NASA.

        The second part is screwier: the only US lunar Landers have been traditional NASA programs. What are you basing your assertion that NASA can’t procure one on?

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Stop sniffing farts. NASA has landed on so many planets Musk probably can’t count that high up. Also, don’t forget NASA funds SpaceX playthings. Musk positions himself so high and talks about canceling subsidies, but in reality without them there would be no SpaceX.

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          There’s only 8 (or 9 depending on who you ask) planets in the solar system. So Musk would have 2 fingers to spare. And we haven’t even “landed” on all of them (not sure how you’d land on a gas giant…)

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      8 months ago

      Wait for a while then make a claim it was a success. Such a huge ship exploding in low earth orbit which is dense with satellites. We are yet to see what kind of damage that did.

      • llamacoffee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth’s atmosphere already :)

        • EeeDawg101@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t believe that’s true, some of the debris more than likely made it back to the ground over the ocean. There are weather radars that picked up the debris and they don’t scan super high up into the atmosphere.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Gotta love that “Starship breaks the sound barrier during launch” image with the shockwaves visible. NO that is not what happens because the sound barrier was broken, the rocket was already going trans- or supersonic and the resultant shockwaves became visible briefly due to atmospheric conditions. Shockwaves do not spontaneously become visible at the point of transition.

    Nonetheless we’re going to see that image pasted over and over on social media stating that it’s the transitional indication of breaking the sound barrier.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    SpaceX’s gargantuan deep-space rocket system, Starship, safely lifted off Saturday morning, but ended prematurely with an explosion and a loss of signal.

    About two and a half minutes after roaring to life and vaulting off the launchpad, the Super Heavy booster expended most of its fuel, and the Starship spacecraft fired its own engines and broke away.

    “The automated flight termination system on second stage appears to have triggered very late in the burn as we were headed down rage out over the Gulf of Mexico,” aerospace engineer John Insprucker said.

    NASA is investing up to $4 billion in the rocket system with the goal of using the Starship capsule to ferry astronauts to the lunar surface for its Artemis III mission, currently slated to take off as soon as 2025.

    The endeavor is aiming to return humans to the moon for the first time in five decades, and the successful completion of this test flight would bring the US space agency and SpaceX one step closer to that goal.

    During that test flight, several of the Super Heavy’s engines unexpectedly powered off and the rocket began spiraling out of control just minutes after liftoff.


    The original article contains 540 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Love how it’s called “deep space rocket system” and yet, this was the only time it managed to reach low earth orbit.

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Booster: deleted
    Spaceship: deleted
    Earth: polluted
    Resources: deleted
    “Manned Mars mission in 2024 if we’re lucky”: not even a hint of it.
    “Manned Mars mission in 2026”: lol

    You can pretend the “test” is a huge success, just like I pretend that my programs crash because they’re still in “beta”.

    Full self driving next year™

    • clothes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      They made a bunch of really cool changes to address the issues from last time, and they seem to have worked almost perfectly. For one, they built a giant water cooled steel plate under the launch mount (affectionately called the Booster Bidet), and the engineering behind it is pretty neat.

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think they use a similar fluid absorber for rocket and space shuttle launches, and have for a long time. So they’re just catching up to NASA.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          The space shuttle one uses a giant flame diverter trench. They aren’t high enough above the water table at starbase to dig one, and they didn’t want to make a giant 50ft tall hill (like at Kennedy) and wait for it to settle before building their tower. So they have a giant shower head instead that is much more aggressive with it’s vibration and sound suppression so that the footprint is much smaller. One solution isn’t necessarily better than the other, they have tradeoffs, but they are pretty different systems.

    • higgs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      8 months ago

      You can think of Elon whatever you want but SpaceX is a big achievement for humanity. Yes he didn’t even everything himself but he puzzled everything together to get reusable rockets. That’s how disruptive companies work.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Big achievement in what sense? The only thing they are disrupting is nature’s reserve they keep demolishing every time they launch something. On every other front they are playing catch up, even to the NASA’s 60 year old stuff.