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

SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#75

Post by avmich »

cma wrote: post #53
avmich wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that's longer than from Alan Shepard's flight to Moon landing. And the task - with all peculiarities - still seems simpler. I don't think this points to the "ungroundness" of Shotwell. Similar projects were discussed and BOTEd for quite some time. The whole suborbital tourism thing is practically rather similar technology, and we're a couple of decades in the implementation time for that.

It is hard to emphasize how much harder that last X% of reliability is to allow something like this for flights of hundreds of civilians. We’re not talking space tourism but a utilitarian service for business travelers and stuff. Hey don’t even have a settled design and have made radical design changes recently. SpaceX commercial crew program began in 2010 and is only just coming to fruition.

But principles are long since known, and prototypes are coming more and more often. Delta-Cliper, Space Ship One, New Shepard, unmanned Dragons, first stages of F-9, aerodynamic tests in wind tunnels - all of them contribute, to various degrees, to the technologies needed.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#78

Post by TrainedMonkey »

haunter wrote: post #60

I'm actually surprised they use a touchscreen interface, and they will use that for the manual docking too! https://i.imgur.com/YKiqIqO.jpg

Display can be used for manual docking, however there is no plan to ever do that outside of an emergency.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#79

Post by elliekelly »

ReptileMan wrote: post #59
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is quite an achievement. This paves the way forward for eventual space colonization.

Agree with it being an achievement. And watching the first stage land was amazing. But chemical engines can get us only to the asteroid belt.

And 116 years ago an engine could only fly us from the top of a hill to the bottom. Don’t underestimate how quickly technology can change what’s possible :)

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#80

Post by avmich »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #47
avmich wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why weird? Choosing something takes trade-offs - in the case of SpaceX capsules, they chose not to develop non-toxic technoogy, saving some time and money, but making an inferior product. It's not weird, it's their decision - which I'm not sure is good. Given that we hopefully will soon see Starship flying, that may be rather moot point though.

Your posts use terms like "inferior" to automatically shift the conversation to the notion that hypergolics are inferior solely because they are dangerous chemicals, and ignore engineering decisions that are made. Its the same as arguing that RP1 engines are inferior to H2 engines because RP1 is based off fossil fuels. It's not relevant to the point.

Dangerousness is relevant, and it's in this aspect which inferiority is mentioned.
Post reply on HN