NASA

1292 readers

1 users here now

Anything related to the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); the latest news, events, current and future missions, and more.

Note: This community is an unofficial forum and is unaffiliated with NASA or the U.S. government.

Rules

Be respectful and inclusive.
No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
Engage in constructive discussions.
Share relevant content.
Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Use appropriate language and tone.
Report violations.
Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L7ePvmEn@lemmy.world

antangil@lemmy.world

SpaceX's Starship explodes in Texas during preparations for 10th test flight (www.space.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by antangil@lemmy.world to c/nasa@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] antangil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Feeling very conflicted about this. Glad the folks are safe. Worried about the implications for Artemis III and the agency. Pretty sure every failure so far has been in the prop system, which is troubling given that the whole strategy for Starship requires extraordinary advancement in prop transfer technology.

Hard to deny a bit of schadenfreude for Elon taking it in the shorts again. Curious if his antics have had morale implications in SpaceX that are helping to generate misses.

A reminder for folks that starship is only viable if they can routinely execute autonomous in-space cryogenic fuel transfers. This explosion appears to be the result of a problem in human-executed on-Earth cryogenic fuel transfer.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Good thing the planet's not warming up, or that giant fireball caused by the needless "work fast and break things" mindset would be worrying

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Better it explodes on the ground than in the sky. All that methane in the upper atmosphere surely does us no favours.

[–] antangil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Honestly curious about that. Anyone around know what the impact is? May need to get a NASA scientist involved… oh, wait, they all are getting fired. /sigh

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No one knows. Probably nothing beneficial. There has recently been news about aerosolized metals in the atmosphere but it's all new. The amount of satellites has been teeny till lately. And no one has been launching giant skyscrapers of methane and exploding them in the upper atmosphere till now either.

[–] antangil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Tough to really throw even partial blame for global warming on chemical propulsion launches. Funny thought, though. :)

Go fast and break stuff is a viable way to rapidly iterate inside a known box, which is really what spaceX did with dragon and falcon. NASA gave them a big head start - they more or less had an engine design, more or less knew how to build a gn&c (even for propulsive return), more or less knew how to build the sticks… just wasn’t efficient or cost-effective. Cutting bits off to see if the overall system still operates is kinda how the relationship between govt and industry is supposed to work.

Starship isn’t iterating inside a known box. It’s not a smarter cheaper version of existing tech, it’s a whole new thing that Elon just kinda spoke into existence. It must be fun to have that kind of money and power, but it doesn’t mean the idea will ever actually work - and this is where the deliberate, methodical process that NASA uses becomes more valuable.

What’ll be interesting is when SpaceX starts missing payment milestones. I think they’ve gotten some grace in the past. Not sure the current environment is as permissive. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of why Elon wants to shift the goalposts to Mars - it’d give him more time to sort out some of the fundamental challenges with his concept.

[–] Goten@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

we wont go to other planets with green farts

[–] antangil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hey methane is a viable fuel for lots of stuff, no shade - it’s got lots of benefits, way easier to manage than liquid hydrogen.

Now, if what you’re thinking about is nuclear… YES. We desperately need prop sources that aren’t locked to the rocket equation. Give me a hybrid NEP/SEP and I’ll try to colonize Mars.