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

211–220 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#211

Post by justatestttt »

emit_time wrote: post #182

I'm surprised how I almost ended up tearing up and was close to crying while watching this. Saying this as someone who is not a huge NASA or space enthusiast. I did study physics, and I'm more into science than the average person though.

I pulled over on the side of the street to watch this with my kiddo on my phone. It was a historic moment that I didn't want to miss.

I really wish that we didn't have to make EVERY experience ultra casual these days though...it was disorienting to keep hearing the astronauts referred to as "Bob and Doug". These are veteran Air Force and Marine pilots. They deserve their honorifics being honored if anyone does.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#212

Post by Zenst »

Gwypaas wrote: post #189
speedgoose wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that the loss of the connection is very likely hardware related but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX simply doesn't want to livestream something that may crash with a high probability. Nothing to do with the anti-science flat earth movement.

Yes, shakes the whole rig causing the satellite dishes to not transmit most of the times. Last time they missed we got a perfectly streamed cloud from the booster crashing in the ocean instead. Also such a low priority, spend engineering hours on the perfect feed which they either way collect in a couple of hours or more pressing matters.

That would make much sense as the one that failed, wouldn't of shaken the ship and not misaligned the transmitter, which will be directional and not large tolerance if satellite or even microwave based to another ship. So may well be that we will never see a live landing unless filmed from another ship due to the money shot causing the whole ship to shake and lose signal alignment.

Oh you can see how that will pan out, only get to see the failures live - but logical explanation for it all, so simple that even that won't stop the conspiracy rabbles. Still, just have to laugh as it's almost the perfect troll on conspiracy nuts the way it works.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#213

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

Gwypaas wrote: post #189
speedgoose wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that the loss of the connection is very likely hardware related but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX simply doesn't want to livestream something that may crash with a high probability. Nothing to do with the anti-science flat earth movement.

Yes, shakes the whole rig causing the satellite dishes to not transmit most of the times. Last time they missed we got a perfectly streamed cloud from the booster crashing in the ocean instead. Also such a low priority, spend engineering hours on the perfect feed which they either way collect in a couple of hours or more pressing matters.

Well, they likely could stream from another ship, bit affected by shaking. And I think it should not be a 'low' priority task, given how big this is for marketing and PR. Literally millions of people are watching these livestreams. I bet if they placed some Disney/HBO logo on a landing pad, it would more than earn back the additional expenses.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#214

Post by Teever »

philwelch wrote: post #198
lmilcin wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I heard correctly, SpaceX got less because they were already running regular resupply missions to ISS and not because they had "worse, less reliable design".

Also because it costs less when you can reuse the booster rocket.

And now you know why Boeing never bothered to develop reusable rockets.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#215

Post by fabian2k »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #173
Zenst wrote: post #159

Best video found so far of it that covers launch and landing of falcon 9. Alas loss of signal during the moment, though I'm sure another camera angle/footage will come about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPLgs3ktyo

I've already seen conspiracy theorists online who claimed that loss of signal during every first stage landing is a proof that it's all a hoax. Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there. I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?

That doesn't make much sense when there is uninterrupted footage of boosters landing on land, and the actual boosters themselves are also often filmed when they arrive on land later with the barge. But then, conspiracy theories are not required to make sense at all.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#216

Post by aerospace_guy »

thephyber wrote: post #181
ghostpepper wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the layoffs announced this week will affect those programs.

Probably not. They have been transferring workers from the programs where contracts are slow (commercial airlines) to those with more steady revenues (DoD contracts) to minimize layoffs. I haven't read up on the newest wave of Boeing layoffs yet.

Incorrect. The layoffs were primarily in the commercial division, and the defense is primarily untouched.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#217

Post by gfodor »

sandworm101 wrote: post #160
ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

It is hard to convey how "sustainable" this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. All of the NASA missions prior to this have an ambience of "uneconomical but useful". Even the shuttle, which was supposed to be this cost effective space truck, turned out to be not even close. And the last thing I'm feeling is the a…

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

Often you need to build the new thing before the business model emerges, because you can’t visualize or evaluate the latter until the former exists.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#218

Post by emiliobumachar »

monocasa wrote: post #168
thePunisher wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want. Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.

I think it's more that the DoD props up Boeing in any way they can, from sweetheart contracts like this, to trade policies designed to destroy competition (the Bombardier thing), to outright industrial espionage of other firms (the leaks of Airbus's foreign negotiations). Edit: Changed Embraer to Bombardier thanks to emiliobumachar's friendly reminder.

Boeing bought a large chunk of Embraer, then refused to pay after Embraer split itself in two.

Could you or anyone please explain what the DoD or its trade policies have to do with that? Or were you talking about another Embraer thing?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#219

Post by tsimionescu »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #143
jl6 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to detract one iota from this amazing achievement, but what definition of sustainable are you thinking of? This was still paid for by the government.

Yes, the government paid to develop crew dragon. And they buy launch services which is another source of revenue. The government paid for Apollo. And once they decided they no longer wanted it, it became impossible to use Apollo parts, technology, or any of the engineers or technicians to put people into orbit. The capability "vanished." If the government never bought another ticket to space, Crew Dragon could be mad…

If Crew Dragon is only making money from the government, how would it still be there tomorrow if the government weren't paying? Do you really imagine that there will be a market for this as it stands today? How much training and medical evaluation have the astronauts gone through to ensure they could survive the trip and know how to operate?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#220

Post by jdm2212 »

emit_time wrote: post #182

I'm surprised how I almost ended up tearing up and was close to crying while watching this. Saying this as someone who is not a huge NASA or space enthusiast. I did study physics, and I'm more into science than the average person though.

I was in a cab and made my wife watch the livestream on my phone. I'm not even into spaceflight; I just can't help but watch and marvel at the fact that we can put a person into space on a rocket... and then land the rocket. It's insane. And if they didn't do it over and over again with eyewitnesses I would refuse to believe it.
Post reply on HN