242
Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket explodes in second test flight | CNN (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nope. Blew up uncontrolled.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I know you're just trying to be negative, I assume because of Musk (I hate him too). You're not being accurate, on purpose or otherwise it doesn't matter. It didn't even reach orbit. How did it blow up in Low Earth Orbit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Am not trying just to be negative. Explosion disperses debris in all directions, and it wasn't a small explosion and it wasn't a small spaceship either but more to the point to quote wikipedia:

    The term LEO region is also used for the area of space below an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) (about one-third of Earth's radius).[3] Objects in orbits that pass through this zone, even if they have an apogee further out or are sub-orbital, are carefully tracked since they present a collision risk to the many LEO satellites.

    So I should have said LEO region, but still. Rocket exploded at 146km, which can pose issues. Hopefully it won't. But it remains to be seen. Kessler syndrome is a real threat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It's about velocity, not altitude. The pieces from the explosion would need to get a fairly dramatic dv addition prograde to end up near orbital. The explosion seems pretty undirected, so the force will be spread in all directions, so most of the force won't be prograde. Even still, it can't be orbital. It'd need some other force added later on its trajectory or it eventually had to pass through the same altitude that the explosion happened, which is in-atmosphere and will cause fairly quick decay. There is no risk of Kessler syndrome. It could potentially have posed a risk to some very low satellites, but we'd already have seen that happen by now if it were going to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •