Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitL | Hacker News Reader

It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds), then at around 30 seconds you can see some explosion at the bottom, throwing away some surface parts. Multiple failed engines. Then it went into an unsurvivable "tailspin" if there was any crew around. Cheering for failure was the topping.

View on HN

What evidence do you have it almost blew up at launchpad? That most likely was concrete chunks flying off away from the rocket and nothing with the rocket itself. You really don't seem to have a grasp what was trying to be done or how any of the previous SpaceX rocket programs functioned.

There seems to be some collective amnesia as to how SpaceX operates. The pedantry over the meaning of "failure", toward the negative, is disappointing.

What's with these orange flames about 70 and 120 seconds into the flight and with the fire at the bottom of the spacecraft that you can see in the SpaceX stream at T+2:10?

Looks like the propellant line issues from earlier flight tests - that sort of stuff is really not at all supposed to happen.

> It almost blew up on the launchpad (see the debris flying after a few seconds)

you have literally no idea what you're talking about

How about the explosion at around T+30? Is that success?

Go play some KSP, you’ll learn to appreciate not blowing up on the pad.

This looked exactly like my problems in KSP. Rocket starts to be uncontrollable, I try to separate, previous stage is still under thrust which means I am unable to separate and then boom.

It even spun like a KSP rocket.

Maybe they were cheering for failure because they know more about their goals than you do

Why is achieving parity with a 60s/70s Soviet tech so admiration-worthy? What am I missing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com