Merged SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Explodes After Launch/Starship hop

[Airfix]

Still impressive, this is a prototype, there's bound to be flaws in the design, the whole point of testing is to find them, and fix them.

 

[Myriad]

"But the ship can't explode!"

"She's made of explodium, sir. I assure you she can, and she will."

 

[Meadmaker]

"But the ship can't explode!"

"She's made of explodium, sir. I assure you she can, and she will."

The announcer was so proud of the perfect touchdown.


The clip I saw cut off with the rocket still sitting on the pad in an unexploded state.

 

[BenBurch]

<delurk>That was pretty awesome.</delurk>

 

[Mike!]

<delurk>That was pretty awesome.</delurk>

Good to see you, Ben!

 

[crescent]

How many tries was it before an F9 landed successfully and safely? More than three, IIRC.

They're going to need at least three more before they have enough to put together another music video.



(Note that the video was made by SpaceX itself. They don't shy from being associated with these sorts of events)

 

[Ziggurat]

The announcer was so proud of the perfect touchdown.


The clip I saw cut off with the rocket still sitting on the pad in an unexploded state.

It looked like a pretty hard touchdown to me, and the rocket seemed to be leaning afterwards.

 

[smartcooky]

As usual, an excellent analysis from Scott Manley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM

 

[Belz...]

Well, it (SN10) went up, came down and landed.

It didn't* blow up.

Seems like the landing legs didn't deploy, it is leaning and looks to be a little bit on fire.

Sometimes those revolutionary things come in incremental steps. This counts.


ETA: I posted too soon. It just blew up, a few minutes after landing. Had to edit the post with a bit of selective strikethrough.

I love the fact that it blew up but they consider it a success.

We don't all have the same definition of "success", I guess.

 

[Trebuchet]

As usual, an excellent analysis from Scott Manley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM

Just watched that and was going to link it if someone didn't beat me too it. Pointed out stuff I wasn't aware of yesterday.

I love the fact that it blew up but they consider it a success.

We don't all have the same definition of "success", I guess.

100% success? No. Mostly successful? Very much so. Or are you going in the direction of the Musk-hater we used to have here who declared the first Falcon Heavy flight a total failure because they didn't land the center core?

 

[smartcooky]

I love the fact that it blew up but they consider it a success.

We don't all have the same definition of "success", I guess.

SN10 was a test article. The object of the exercise was to show that landing the test article as planned was possible... 100% successful on that front.

These test articles are only designed to fly once, to complete the test and prove the concept. SN10 was to be dismantled, the RUD save them the job. The only thing they would have been disappointed about was wrecking their Raptor engines

 

[smartcooky]

100% success? No. Mostly successful? Very much so. Or are you going in the direction of the Musk-hater we used to have here who declared the first Falcon Heavy flight a total failure because they didn't land the center core?

Ahhh, Jules Galen - they failed to land the centre core so the whole flight was a failure

 

[Belz...]

100% success? No. Mostly successful? Very much so. Or are you going in the direction of the Musk-hater we used to have here who declared the first Falcon Heavy flight a total failure because they didn't land the center core?

Oh, sure. I'm a Musk hater because I don't view exploding rockets as successes.

I'd call it a mitigated success, or a partial success. But then, I'm not a Musk groupie.

SN10 was a test article. The object of the exercise was to show that landing the test article as planned was possible... 100% successful on that front.

These test articles are only designed to fly once, to complete the test and prove the concept. SN10 was to be dismantled, the RUD save them the job. The only thing they would have been disappointed about was wrecking their Raptor engines

You can't possibly be serious. It exploded and it counts as being dismantled after the test?

I'm aware that it was a test. The test, presumably, included the rocket not exploding. So the test at least partially failed.

 

[smartcooky]

You can't possibly be serious. It exploded and it counts as being dismantled after the test?.

Of course not... lighten up a bit! You are taking yourself too seriously.

 

[Belz...]

Of course not... lighten up a bit! You are taking yourself too seriously.

Actually, I was taking you too seriously, it seems. I'll remind you that sarcasm and tone are hard to detect in written form.

In any event, the maneuvers were impressive, but it's not like the rocket just missed the platform and landed safely a bit further off. It blew up. That's more than a minor failure, which prompted my original comment.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, I was taking you too seriously, it seems. I'll remind you that sarcasm and tone are hard to detect in written form.

In any event, the maneuvers were impressive, but it's not like the rocket just missed the platform and landed safely a bit further off. It blew up. That's more than a minor failure, which prompted my original comment.

Well, at least they got a free second, low altitude flight!

(for the removal of doubt, that was a joke)

 

[Belz...]

Well, at least they got a free second, low altitude flight!

(for the removal of doubt, that was a joke)

Yeah I kind of figured that one out for myself, but thanks. I do have my moments.

 

[Trebuchet]

Oh, sure. I'm a Musk hater because I don't view exploding rockets as successes.

I'd call it a mitigated success, or a partial success. But then, I'm not a Musk groupie.



You can't possibly be serious. It exploded and it counts as being dismantled after the test?

I'm aware that it was a test. The test, presumably, included the rocket not exploding. So the test at least partially failed.

Note to self: There's no point arguing with Argumemnon.

 

[Belz...]

Note to self: There's no point arguing with Argumemnon.

Oh, please. We've had discussions before and they've mostly been productive. You know I have no ill will toward you. And you do know that what you just did there is against the MA, so why do it? I'll remind you that you kind-of-but-not-really already had me labeled a hater for simply pointing out that a rocket exploding isn't much of a success, but me opining the reverse for you is beyond the pale?

How about this: what's wrong with my argument that one of the fundamental things that a rocket shouldn't do is explode?

 

[Meadmaker]

How about this: what's wrong with my argument that one of the fundamental things that a rocket shouldn't do is explode?

Against my better judgement, I'll actually answer that question.

What's wrong with it is that everyone agrees with you, so it would appear that you are arguing about something everyone agrees with.


On my general impression of what happened yesterday, I would tend to put it in the "failure" camp, because, explosion.

However, wearing my engineering hat, I know that something can be a very big success even if it explodes. A lot of things went right. They learned a lot about the things that they got wrong, so it's not ridiculous to call it a success, in some sense. It's just that if you try to convince people it was a success overall, the existence of gigantic unplanned fireballs makes a powerful impression that any success was, shall we say, less than complete.

Putting it a different way, there are lots of different levels of success, and the marketing department and the engineering department might disagree with what makes a successful test. However, both of them would agree that rockets should not explode.