Does anyone else think the thumbnail looks like a llama with laser eyes?
Carrrrrllllll
That killllls peeeeople
Earth-8311 version of Cyclops.
I didn’t see it by myself but now I can’t unsee it
I do now
Can’t unsee
The front fell off.
I’d just like to make the point that that is not normal.
Well, the ship was towed outside of the environment.
Well what was it made of?
Pickles mostly
Musk probably can’t get the good Kosher pickles anymore because he’s been promoting Nazis on Twitter.
Poorly built rocket
You must be from Reddit. I appreciate good comments like this
What’s with all the snobbery?
Shhhh, they’re winning the Internet by being 3L1T3.
That’s not how you spell l33t. You fucking n00b.
1337, cmon now!
Actually I remember when it was still “elite” and it meant you had access to the warez section of a BBS.
Oh, Warez.
That sure was a long time ago…
Thanks for the memory!
The chat programs on AOL from the Warez rooms was always fun.
Do you get to the cloud district very often? Oh what am I saying, of course you don’t.
Bruh its a TEST STAND TEST STAND this is not the Frist time a engine exploded on a test stand raptor engines in their development phase are supposed to explode. Elon musk has said if something doesn’t explode then you did something wrong
Well, if Musk said it, it must be true. /s
If you’re testing for fail state, sure.
If you’re testing for sustained burn, you fucked up. Time to science and figure up how to unfuck it.
Hope everyone was okay, the article doesn’t talk about injuries.
Personnel are evacuated from McGregor whenever a test is to be performed, just like they are with Starbase.
There is absolutely zero chance anyone got hurt. This isn’t Boeing.
For now.
‘Zero chance’ is suspect
I’m confident enough in that to put my money where my mouth is.
SpaceX has been very transparent about their testing procedures and it is established that testing locations are always evacuated for any kind of test, as is required by the FAA. If you really wanna cast doubt on this, then why don’t we put some money on it?
Your response is even more sus. You keep your money, Comrade. Sounds like you need it
If they didn’t think they had a chance of exploding, they wouldn’t be testing them
the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities
The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly
Well, which is it? I’m going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.
edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.
The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines
So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.
On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.
IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.
It waw McGregor. And while the explosion was spectacular, it happened on the test stand, so not much damage was done actually.
Just to be pedantic:
IFT 3 was a suborbital flight, so… either it did not reach orbital velocity, or the upper stage careened so wildly out of control that it borked it.
Its kind of confusing as in the live stream of it they keep saying the phrase orbital velocity, reached orbit, but also say it was intended to be a suborbital flight.
Edit: Yeah as best I can tell it was not even intended to be an orbital flight. https://x.com/planet4589/status/1765586241934983320
Also, the lower stage crashed into the ocean at around mach 2, so maybe that is what they are referring to? Looked like many of the engines did not relight, in addition to significant instability as it traversed back through the atmosphere.
Also also, the ‘re entry’ burn may be referring to attempting to relight the engines while in space? You are probably correct that they mean the landing burn / belly flop???
Edit 2: If they intend to do a suborbital flight, but also reach orbital velocity, this would entail a trajectory leading to a fairly steep descent path, which could need a … basically a pre reentry burn, to lessen velocity and/or change the descent path to something more shallow.
Its pretty hard to tell actual info about these Starship flights, partially because SpaceX outright lies during their live feeds, is tight lipped about other things, and many sources of coverage are often confused and/or simping for Musk.
One last thing: Does… Starship, the upper stage… even have monopropellant thrusters, or gyros, or anything for out of atmosphere orientation adjustments?
From the IFT3 vid it seemed like either no, or they malfunctioned.
IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.
Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don’t recall if/when they were.
Just to further clarify this…
They did the suborbital thing because they wanted to ensure it came in over the ocean.
If they went orbital, and anything went wrong, they’d have lost control of where it would deorbit and land, potentially putting people at risk.
So sure the rocket did not reach orbit.
No one with even a pinch of knowledge on the topic would ever try to dispute they could have if they wanted.
It was for our saftey that they didn’t.
IFT3 began to tumble shortly after launch, at least before they opened the “door” where it was obvious. The tumble may have been caused by a leak, and the “reentry” was simply a chaotic mess where the engine(s) began to burn up in the atmosphere, and it was absolutely 100% out of control.
IFT3 finished most of the goals that had been set for that test flight. It was highly successful and they learned a lot that is being applied to IFT4.
The re-entry burn is the burn to slow down your spacecraft below orbital speeds, initiating re-entry.
Every spacecraft that wants to land back on earth after orbiting it needs to do a re-entry burn.
The only exception, theoretically, are spacecraft that return from outside earth’s orbit. They could in theory re-enter by steering towards the atmosphere at the right angle. I don’t know if they actually do that in practice or slow down to orbital speeds first, though.What you’re talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it’s body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.
IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.
Good lord, everyone please learn a tiny bit about spacex and the state of the space industry instead of letting your (justified) hatred of Elon do the typing.
I’d have a lot more sympathy for this comment if people would actually do this in reference to Space Billionaires. I’ve had far too many conversations online and elsewhere where the individual shits on NASA for space industry problems and worships Space Billionaires because [some convoluted “government bad rich entrepreneurs good” reason] and their problems aren’t really problems. I’m not saying you’re part of the billionaire sycophant club, but I’m not against musk’s well deserved criticism as he sacrifices people in his rush, and probably work quality suffers alongside them.
Is it ok to shit on NASA for dumping so much money into developing Starship?
Also the SLS doesn’t seem much better. But at least they’ve been around the moon on the SLS.
Personally I’d rather they work on developing spacecraft that can be launch on Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavies, even if it meant multiple launches and assembling things at the ISS before going to the Moon and onwards. Doing this during the Apollo era was difficult because docking operations weren’t all that reliable and there was no ISS back then so giant rockets was the way to go. But things have changed and dumping insane amounts of money into building massive rockets seems like a waste of money and probably isn’t as safe as using proven rocket systems.
Also the SLS doesn’t seem much better.
Are you joking? The SLS is a pretty major step backward for American spaceflight. If we continue flying the SLS, and make all the launches we plan (spoiler alert, that isn’t going to happen) then the cost per launch could be as low as $2 billion. But more likely we will end the SLS program when it proves to be a never ending money sink, and with so much money put into development, we’ll end up with a per launch cost upwards of $5 billion. Meanwhile, for that price it can only manage to get 95 tons to low Earth orbit.
Compare this to the Saturn V, which could lift more and cost much less, even when adjusted for inflation. The Saturn V cost $185 million, or $1.23 billion adjusting for inflation. And it could put 141 tons into low Earth orbit.
To sum up, this new rocket is much less capable and much more expensive than what we were doing 55 years ago.
You could of course also compare this to what spaceX is doing… Their aim is to make a rocket of similar payload capability 100-150t, but with a per launch cost of about $100 million via reusability. That’s an order of magnitude of improvement, that’s huge.
Then why arent we building Saturn Vs?
That’s actually a really good question. The short answer is that we don’t remember how to. A lot of the techniques used to actually make the parts were poorly documented. That was partly on purpose, everything was top secret because we didn’t want the Russians to know how we were doing it all. And now, all the people who did those jobs have gotten old and left the industry.
Their aim is to make a rocket of similar payload capability 100-150t, but with a per launch cost of about $100 million via reusability.
Elon Musk promises a lot of things, but doesn’t have a good track record on delivering.
SLS has at least been around the moon. I agree that it’s a step backwards, but Starship is two steps backwards. Just seems to be a knock-off of the Space Shuttle (which also proved to be a bad idea) that’s being developed by just blowing shit up. I hope I’m wrong about Starship, it would be awesome it it worked. But it’s the same goes fore the Space Shuttle too.
But more likely we will end the SLS program when it proves to be a never ending money sink, and with so much money put into development, we’ll end up with a per launch cost upwards of $5 billion.
SpaceX has already blown through $5 billion and hasn’t launched anything yet. Well yeah I guess they got it into space briefly… spinning out of control until it burnt up. They haven’t even gotten to the part of testing to make see if the heat tiles that we see peeling off the thing will make it go full Columbia on a regular basis. If it ever works it’ll be a long time before that thing gets man rated.
Like I say, SLS sucks but it’s has a successful launch and has gotten around the Moon. Actually successful not SpaceX “successful”.
SpaceX is currently losing the “bad idea space race” to NASA. The only winners in the Space race will be the billionaires that’ll make a lot of money from making giant rockets that go nowhere.
I dont see whynanyone’s surprised, anything Elon is touchung is tainted by association. It’s not rocket science.
Well, this is rocket science.
Right, and that’s the joke. All that talent and progress is tainted by Elon’s actions.
Elon founded SpaceX in 2002. He said he wanted to build reusable, cost effective space platform where rocket boosters could land themselves and be refurbished with low turn-around times to fly multiple missions.
People laughed at the idea of a rocket that could land itself upright. And after countless tests that resulted in magnificent fiery failures and flops, a private American company is now responsible for launching crew and cargo to the ISS so we don’t have to rely on Russia or ELA alone, and has more recently gone on to develop the largest rocket ever made.
In the 22 years since it’s inception, SpaceX has designed it’s own:
- Rockets
- Engines
- Rocket Propellant
- Satellites and base stations
- Bespoke robust communications network
- Ground support structure (including a moving robotic tower named “Mechanical”)
- Crewed mission vehicle platform
- The world’s biggest fucking rocket
Say whatever you want about his beliefs, his opinions, his shit takes-- point me to another company that has done even half of that in that amount of time, or had nearly as monumental of an impact on the global space industry and America’s access to space in the last two decades.
And if y’all haven’t yet already, do yourselves a favor and look up NASASpaceflight on YouTube, watch their most viewed videos, which should be some of the SpaceX tests. You’ll come to understand why shit blowing up is normal and a good thing with SpaceX: because they prototype and develop iteratively and rapidly, intentionally testing to failure so they know exactly how far from failure their nominal conditions would be. If they did not do this, the platform would not be safe and they would be getting fucked by a camel wearing another camel’s skin for kicks.
Important to point out that a lot of NASA’s problems are probably caused by Congress: their attempts to “save money” by re-using designs, the risk of NASA losing funding if any rocket they make fails, their insistence on having NASA support government military contractors, etc
This is a lot of what is preventing them from taking the rapid prototyping and iterative approach of SpaceX.
More like rocket surgery from SpaceX.
You’re right, Elon Musk being associated with a company is negative. And what SpaceX has accomplished despite that association is truly impressive.
I think around here most people agree that billionaires don’t earn their billions, they reach that point having benefited from the efforts of thousands of workers. So why don’t we recognize those people’s work? Somehow, SpaceX has managed to avoid the meddling that we see from Musk in relation to Twitter and Tesla.
Before SpaceX the U.S. was reliant on Russia’s soyuz to get us to and from the space station. We didn’t have anything that could launch people into orbit.
Before SpaceX we were launching single use rockets built by companies like United Launch Alliance (ULA), which was founded as a joint venture between defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing. (They’re still around and still for the most part suck)
And before SpaceX the cost to do anything in space was extremely prohibitive. NASA didn’t and still doesn’t really build their own rockets, they contract out, and the contracts had been cost-plus, meaning ULA got an agreed on profit plus expenses. So if the schedule slipped on development or development cost more than expected, they actually make more money. There wasn’t much of a private market in space.
With SpaceX they created re-usable rocket components, re-established a U.S. sourced crew capsule, and using fixed price contracts they reduced the cost of launch by an order of magnitude. And by publishing fixed prices to get into space, they pretty much by themselves kicked off the private space economy. SpaceX launches more frequently than any other company, and more than any nation.
And they did all that with a better safety record than previous programs! I can’t speak to this particular explosion, but SpaceX has taken an approach where they create new designs quickly, and test them quickly with the potential for explosions, before they put humans at risk on a live launch.
Elon Musk didn’t do all that, the people at SpaceX did. And if anything I’m concerned about the point when he gets tired of fucking up twitter and tesla and turns his attention to SpaceX. I’m hoping the national security aspect of the company will mean responsible adults prevent him from interfering.
And before SpaceX the cost to do anything in space was extremely prohibitive.
As opposed to now…
With SpaceX they created re-usable rocket components
Nobody had done that before? Wasn’t the promise that they would do few quick checks, refuel, and send it back up same day?
Before SpaceX the U.S. was reliant on Russia’s soyuz to get us to and from the space station.
Nasa had do use Soyuz because crew dragon was late. SpaceX won the contract then underdelivered a late product. Basically exactly what ULA or Boeing would have done.
Wanna talk about Artemis?
Meaning no disrespect, it’s clear from your response you’re not familiar with space history. And that was my point - a lot of people are jumping in here and making negative comments just because of the Musk association without knowing or caring about the reality.
The space shuttle (the U.S.’ s previous manned “reusable” vehicle) was retired in 2011, and the Crew Dragon was ready in about 2020. NASA was not forced to use Soyuz because of a delay in the Crew Dragon, it was because the Space Shuttle had two previous fatal disasters, was way more expensive than planned, and would be even more expensive to keep running. I didn’t know this until looking at the wikipedia just now, but early safety estimates put the chance of catastrophic failure and death of the crew between 1 in 100 to as low as 1 in 100,000. After those two disasters they re-evaluated and put the risk as high as 1 in 9.
NASA was willing to take a chance on other contracts for commercial vehicles because it had no other options. It awarded contracts both to SpaceX and ULA. The first is doing dozens of uncrewed launches per year and has flown 12 crewed missions. The other is doing like 3 launches per year, has yet to fly Starliner with a crew, and costs more per launch.
The space shuttle vehicle itself was re-usable. The “external tank” was discarded and not re-used. The solid rocket boosters would fall into the ocean, and then would have to be recovered, examined and refurbished. Those tanks/boosters represented a huge portion of the cost. While the space shuttle was slightly more re-usable, other rocket launches would be single use. What SpaceX did that no one else had before was a controlled vertical landing of the booster. In other words, it landed under power and standing up. That’s very difficult, and a game changer since it skipped the recovery step, and they didn’t require the time and cost of examination / refurbishment the way the space shuttle components did.
What is it you want to say about Artemis?
I like to think that Musks obsession with Twitter saved SpaceX. Thankfully he seems happy to just give them money and do the odd walk around tour during milestones.
They really have turned around our space capabilities.
Man, this is really downplaying the history that was legitimately made by the incredible people at SpaceX. It actually felt to many of us like we had just gone to the Moon for the first time.
Dunno about anyone else but I was freaking out.
🤡
Uh huh, totally not the drug addicted scammers fault that he made bullshit claim after bullshit claim, pushing engineers to make reckless decisions, totally not the owners fault.
I’ll grant you that SpaceX has, amongst others, a number of smart engineers, though smart is a relative term if you’re working for elon musk
You wouldn’t say this if you were following the industry at all. Please see my other comment in this thread. SpaceX is dominating, for good reason, and seemingly in spite of musk.
I’ve been against the space industry/NASA/etc’s bullshit love of Elon’s fucked up project ever since the idiot took over. If they can’t see how he has mismanaged every single thing he’s ever touched and pulled out of every single contract with them because of him, they have serious issues.
Maybe now NASA will come to their senses, kick SpaceX to the curb, and work with someone actually competent.
Like who? Boeing?
Cry harder. Without SpaceX the US space industry would be worse than Russia right now. SpaceX launches hundreds of rockets per year and saves NASA millions in launch costs, and can actually launch people into space, unlike Boeing
Please see my other comment in this same thread. It’s not like Tesla or Twitter where they’re clearing slipping and releasing bad product. Look at the actual accomplishments!
As much as we on lemmy might look down on consumers of conservative news, I’m really surprised by how similarly reflexive and uninformed a lot of the comments here are.
Word on the street is that Starship was going to blow the whistle on Boeing.
Remember when the FAA investigated SpaceX’s violation of it’s launch license over them ignoring warnings of worsening shockwave damage after their botched SN8 landing?
Pepperidge Farms Remembers.
maybe someone left their Tesla there
Do we have a shot of SpaceX employees cheering and clapping?
I kinda got used to seeing happy faces after a catastrophic failure.
Oof
NASA successfully launched Artemis 1 first try.
A disposable rocket at $4 billion dollars a pop, if not more. They built one rocket, they may build a second and maybe even a third. Eventually.
SpaceX is not building a rocket, they are building a rocket factory. A factory that will mass-produce fully reusable rockets.
Different philosophy. Play it safe and analyze everything extensively to make sure you don’t have a PR nightmare. That leads to less aggressive designs and longer schedules, but looks better for the public and Congress.
And they don’t even have a goal of more than one launch a year and billions of dollars per launch. Artemis is the same old flag waving BS: do it once to say you’re first, then lose interest.
Starship’s goals of reusability, frequent launches, order of magnitude cost reductions can be the foundation of the next jump in space industry/exploration
At a greater cost than every starship built to date combined…
Congrats?
I expect they’ll be able to launch 2, perhaps even 3 more Artemis rockets before the program is cancelled and the rocket architecture abandoned due to unreasonable cost.
Where’s your evidence proving exactly how much Starship has cost in total? Or wait, maybe you are just making bullshit up because you have no idea how much it has actually cost them because they don’t disclose that information like NASA does.
SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.
This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.
Bluntly, this is absurd.
For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA’s Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That’s nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it’s almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.
The starship is built out in the open, the whole world can watch. Because of that, there are pretty good estimates for how much construction costs. If you take the more pessimistic estimates, my statement would still hold true.
Also, as a reminder, even without knowing exact numbers you can still make some ballpark assertions with confidence. For example, Jupiter has the mass of more than a dozens earths. I could look up the actual number, but I can be pretty damn sure it’s more than twelve.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently announced that Starship’s fourth integrated flight test, IFT-4, could be just days away.
He should really stop predicting things.
Perhaps you should read the actual story before spreading misinformation
It’s just an opinion.
An opinion completely unrelated to the post
As another commenter stated, this explosion is not at “Starbase” where they launch starship. It’s unlikely to have any impact on the launch schedule for Starship. They tested an engine on a test stand and it failed. They will likely learn something from it.
Imagine how much SpaceX could learn if they blow up a crewed starship.
- Musk toadie (probably)
If something is going to blow up, its much better to happen on a test stand than on an actual product or test launch.
Best case would be doing the math beforehand, as they Didn’t do with the flame trench iterations until the water pump system was added. And we know that because other people on youtube did do the math and determined even the special high temperature concrete from NASA wasnt going to be enough by itself.
They knew that it wasn’t going to be enough by itself, they were predicting that it would last long enough to survive a single launch. They were already planning to replace the pad, they just figured they would do it after the first test launch.
They were slightly off in their prediction, but that’s why these are test launches. Fortunately it didn’t do much harm, and they were already gearing up to replace the launch pad surface anyway so free excavation.
Dude, the entire pad was gone. People in the “safe” zone had concrete raining down on them and the rocket itself was severely damaged from the takeoff.
If they had done the math before that, they would have never attempted that launch.
No, the entire pad wasn’t gone. The concrete under the pad had a big hole in it, but most of the structure was intact - as evidenced by the fact that they just patched the hole and continued using the pad without having to replace the whole thing.
Nobody was hurt. The rocket was damaged, but it still managed to accomplish much of what they’d wanted it to accomplish. It was a test launch, they knew it wasn’t going to cruise all the way to the finish line. They wanted to see what went wrong.
Do you really think they didn’t do the math at all? They did the math, they figured they could risk it based on what the math told them, they turned out to be wrong in hindsight. Plenty of things seem like good risks that turn out to be bad ones in hindsight. They’re not a bunch of yee-haw wild men who do stuff without thinking or calculating, the FAA would never be giving them launch licenses if they were.
So maybe working your engineers 24 hours a day isn’t a great idea?
So you’re saying this was an extremely hardcore explosion?
HARDCORE TO THE MEGA
Maybe someone called it cisgendered.
