Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 926 posts

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#501

Post by azernik »

logiclion wrote: post #472
CydeWeys wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're showing your biases here. The other people on the livestream are also rocket scientists. They aren't PR people. They just happen to be younger, or women, or of color. So you might want to re-evaluate what you think a rocket scientist "looks like", because your notion is outdated. Sorry to call you out like this, but these kinds of prejudices about who is the "correct" kind of person for tech jobs are harmful a…

I believe the person was comparing the engineer to his model of a TV star rather than comparing his model of the engineer to the other 'tv looking ones'. "Sorry to call you out on this" but this person is clearly giving an opinion and this type of reactionary statement reads as defensive due to you expressing some type of negativity due to the structure of this persons opinion. You might want to re-evaluate what your…

If this hedges and mild way of pointing out implicit bias is a "hammer", then what exactly do you think is polite enough?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#502

Post by meatbags »

runesoerensen wrote: post #496

"That core booster approached the platform as planned, but it unfortunately hit the water going 300 MPH and was lost, because some of its return engines failed to light" https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/spacex-landed-two-of-its-t...

Thanks for the closure - I've been refreshing twitter all morning.

I've seen the much-touted $90M price-tag for the FH launch, but does that take into account loss of the core or boosters?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#503

Post by InclinedPlane »

SeoxyS wrote: post #451
DavidHm wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Wars is not sci-fi, it's a cross between space fantasy and space opera. The list of better sci-fi movies is long.

From wikipedia > Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes space warfare, melodramatic adventure, interplanetary battles, chivalric romance, and risk-taking > A science fantasy is a cross-genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy Star Wars is 100% science fiction.

The core difference between science-fiction and fantasy goes back to the philosophical debates about the nature of the universe in ancient greece, the difference between a mechanistic view of the Universe (which we have come to accept as the foundation of science) and a teleological view of the Universe. Star Wars has a teleologic view of the Universe, it's baked into the DNA of the material. "The Force", the light side, the dark side, being "strong in the force" based on your heritage, and so on. That's the foundation of Star Wars.

Star Wars is not science fiction, it is fantasy or mythology in a science-fictional setting. It is fusion cuisine.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#504

Post by Stratoscope »

euphoria83 wrote: post #439
komali2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely love that Musk is putting a car into Mars orbit. Assuming mankind doesn't have an extinction event (or dark ages event), it is extremely likely we'll populate the solar system over the next millenia. In 200 years, Martian children can look up in the sky and know that one of the quickly moving visible satellites is a hilarious, old-Earth car. Depending on how accessible orbit is from planets over the next…

Is it okay to put unnecessary stuff in the orbits around our or other planets? Isn't this space trash that can potentially be problematic for future endeavors? Are we creating problems for ourselves to satisfy our vanity?

It's going into a heliocentric orbit, and people will surely be tracking it.

If it gets to be a problem in the future, it will have so much historical value that someone will launch a mission to go fetch the Roadster and bring it home to Mars.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#505

Post by ChuckMcM »

Raises some interesting secondary questions; Did the starman dummy contain telemetry? At lift off? Now? If I were SpaceX this is a good way to test your spacesuit, actually in space, if you instrument the dummy its on. Pressure sensors, temperature sensors, G sensors.

Do they turn off the camera if its about to fly by something that would rather not be seen?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#506

Post by ionforce »

robeastham wrote: post #486
andrepd wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good-faith reading of the parent commentary is that he was talking about the mannerisms and language and overall appearance of the person, not that he was white-skinned and a man. Immediately assuming he was saying he looks like an engineer because he isn't a women, or dark-skinned, is ironically a racist and sexist assumption.

I find it fascinating that SpaceX manages to pull off one of the most amazing things in the history of humanity and the top comment thread here on HN somehow manages to get bogged down in discussing race, gender and sexual orientation as it relates to the "hosts" of the live stream. These are important issues to be sure, but the self appointed thought police of generation "I'm offended" who feel the need to instruct…

> somehow manages to get bogged down

Your view that these issues are superfluous and can bog things down is a direct function of your privilege (granted by your being white and male, for example).

Your irritation is also an example of white fragility.

You don't have to believe any of this stuff. But could you consider a scenario in which your ability to freely enjoy these things is not freely enjoyed by someone of a different race or gender as you?

If you don't want to consider it, that's your choice.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#507

Post by pjscott »

franzb wrote: post #20

Absolutely amazing, we watched science-fiction today. Anyone knows what happened to the core booster?

Elon Musk just confirmed in a press conference that the third core was lost; two of the engines that should have slowed it down failed to re-ignite and it came in too fast. I predict either success or a more interesting failure on the next flight.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#508

Post by InclinedPlane »

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #129
rplst8 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like the human race is starting to master space travel. It's probably just an illusion, but I feel like we're entering a new era.

These are only baby steps at the beginning of the adventure.

Falcon Heavy is 1/10th the cost of other heavy lift launchers, and able to launch 10x (or more) often, with a higher payload. This is no baby step.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#509

Post by NamTaf »

webXL wrote: post #252
pulkitanand wrote: post #152

They lost the center core: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_tWbjFIGI&t=2307 But 2/3 is impressive! Seeing the simultaneous landings had me in tears!

Was there anything special about the center core other than boosting longer and needing to land out at sea? Seems like they've landed plenty out at sea, but not while landing two on land. I thought this was impressive: "With a total of 27 first-stage engines, Falcon Heavy has engine-out capability that no other launch vehicle can match—under most payload scenarios, it can sustain more than one unplanned engine shutdo…

It is probably the fastest/highest burn they've ever tried to land, and thus needs the most fuel to land, expeirences the most structural stress, etc. etc.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#510

Post by mobilefriendly »

janoc wrote: post #387
alangibson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely feels incredibly significant. The Soviet Union tried and failed 4 or 5 times to launch a rocket with this many engines, but now we're able to nail it on the first try aaaand land the boosters.

Well, but to be fair to the Soviets, they had to do it with really "stone age" electronics and technology and not knowing the many things we know today. I am pretty sure that SpaceX was able to achieve what they did today also because they studied the Soviet N1 rocket and learned from what the engineers at that time had to figure out from scratch. The other thing is that the N1 Moon rocket was a very different design…

You make it sound easy, but NASA's current heavy lift rocket has spent billions more than SpaceX and the project is still years away from test launch.
Post reply on HN