SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#921

Post by danielroe » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #393

shepardrtc wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone asked me to be a reference, I said no, they still put me as a reference anyway. I was not happy. Didn't badmouth him, but I also didn't say anything good about him. And when asked if I would hire him where I worked, I said no.

I asked permission from all of my references beforehand. Two were coworkers and the last was my previous team lead. I knew all of them had positive opinions regarding my work. The problem was BlueOrigin’s reference-questionnaire. One of my references shared it with me afterwards. It’s a stock template - except pretty much all the questions seem contrived to find reasons not to hire someone. One of the questions was a…

I was once asked to list the number of days taken off work by the person I was referring (including sick days).

I assume it was a sneaky way of finding out whether the person suffered from any recurring health condition, and I refused to answer it.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#922

Post by hueving » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 3:52 AM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #864

hueving wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty presumptuous to make that assertion unless you knew the person for many years in different work environments. I've seen lots of engineers become 'bad engineers' because of a myriad of environmental issues (bad management, bad peers, bad office, bad engineering decisions foisted upon them). If you didn't see them perform well, don't provide a reference. If they are that bad, nobody in a reputable position…

If someone calls me up and asks about Coworker X, and I refuse to provide a reference, isn't that likely to be viewed the same as a negative reference?

You refuse the coworker when the coworker asks if he/she can use you as a reference.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#923

Post by TimTheTinker » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #860

simonh wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rocket ran out of engine igniter fluid. It had enough to light the centre engine, but not the two side engines. That seems to imply they were trying to do a 3-engine landing, which they tested recently in the 'failed to expend the rocket' incident. This might explain why they miscalculated the igniter requirement since they don't have much experience with 3-engine landings.

Is the normal landing a 1-engine landing? If so, is the advantage of a 3-engine landing that it requires less fuel due to having a much shorter 'suicide burn'?

What’s a “suicide burn”?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#924

Post by chx » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 5:56 AM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #920

chx wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That includes things like launch parties. They don't do traditional advertising.

Advertising is advertising - doesn't need to be "traditional" - even if that's the metric ... who cares? They're a unicorn, plenty of companies have benefited (temporarily) from unabashed media excitement. Comparisons like this are silly.

Temporarily. You mean a decade is temporary?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#925

Post by janoc » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #397

janoc wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see how that's much of a credit boost to the Soviet failures the parent is referencing. The Apollo program had the same constraints of lacking modern electronics and not knowing many of the things we know today.

Apollo program certainly did not work under the same type of constraints the Soviets had. Yes, the electronics was primitive compared to what we have today but Apollo didn't need to work around international embargoes for every screw and piece of wire.

If Soviets wanted something modern, they had to reinvent it from scratch - or steal it. They were fairly good at both. Whether it was a computer, transistors or entire designs. The results were usually very simple designs where little could go wrong and that didn't need complicated technology - which wasn't available. E.g. the Soyuz capsule vs. both the Apollo and Space Shuttle craft.

I lived in a former Soviet bloc country and I can tell you that getting even silly components like LEDs required superhuman efforts. The few that were made domestically ended up in industrial uses (or exported to USSR) and importing anything from abroad was almost impossible. We had a black & white TV full of tubes until late 80s at home - color solid state TVs didn't become available until 1988 or so (and sucked big time).

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#926

Post by porjo » Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

andygates wrote: post #918

porjo wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very hard to believe this was a technical failure/limitation. My money would be on a deliberate cut, possibly even automated, when the systems became aware of impending failure. It'd be important for SpaceX that any negative outcomes are delayed from public release in order to control what makes it into the headline news. The fate of the reusable components would be a particularly sensitive aspect of the PR camp…

Nah, this is standard stuff for SpaceX. They always get signal dropouts and someone always says "conspiracy!" They're not interested in the extra hassle of continuity for the sake of putting on a live show. The droneship has tons of cameras, the booster has tons of telemetry, that's all they're interested in. (if you must spin a conspiracy, the one where they deliberately don't upgrade to keep their fans guessing is…

I have nothing to gain by SpaceX failing. I wish them all the best. I'm just stating what I think is pretty obvious - that this was a massive PR exercise, apart from anything else. My BS detector goes into overdrive at times like that.

When you mount cameras on a landing barge, you would expect there to be a high likelihood of them being damaged or affected in some way when your rocket lands. So you do the obvious thing, and setup a redundant camera feed somewhere at a distance. Previous test landings at sea had a chase plane. Where was that this time?