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

401–410 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#401

Post by EamonnMR »

runarberg wrote: post #269
sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

I’m not super well informed on this, but is there any reason for sending humans to space at this moment in time (or for the next 20 years for that matter). The only reason my layperson understanding can think of is mining minerals in space, but I fail to see why robots wouldn’t be able to adequately do the job. In fact wouldn’t sending humans make future space ventures even more costly and put people into unessisary…

Escaping planet Earth is a reasonable goal.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#402

Post by jm4 »

tenpies wrote: post #356
rkagerer wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can try out the docking maneuvers in this official minigame: https://iss-sim.spacex.com/ Personally I found the lack of analog input control harrying toward the end. A toggle between "large" and "normal" thrust mode is all you get. Normal felt like it wasn't fine-grained enough.

It's the Tesla approach, form > function.

BS. Do you think for a second some Tesla engineer or Elon Musk himself could design the most important control panel on a spaceship to look pretty without the support of the people who have to use it? If the astronauts or NASA engineers weren’t ok with it, it wouldn’t be there.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#403

Post by Isinlor »

fermienrico wrote: post #185
bryanlarsen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two rows of physical buttons below the touch screens along with a large manual abort lever. The physical buttons are used for manual docking.

And it’s painted black against black backdrop when the decision to pull it happens in milliseconds level. :facepalm: This is what a Martin Baker ejection handle looks like: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BJTDWG/martin-baker-ejection-seat-... With all due respect to all the engineers that work at SpaceX, the UI of the cockpit has regressed to the point of pure marketing. Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low b…

You should listen to the astronauts. SpaceX is developing all of it with them and for them. They seem quite happy with UI because it allows rapid iteration on procedures. If they screw up something SpaceX can adjust interface within days. With space shuttle they would need to wait months and months.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#404

Post by Gwypaas »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #213
Gwypaas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be amazing to have it live in perfect quality, completely agree.

I found this video in some other comment and I think it highlights how incredibly violent the landings actually are, even from very far away https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBlIvghQTlI

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#405

Post by kerng »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #377
kerng wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the main priorities is military supremacy. It might not appear as that from a bit away, but that should not be overlooked. NASA's boss really highlighted some of that indirectly today as well with the increased funding to build out Space Force and some of that money goes to SpaceX obviously. So commercial, yes, but not like a car. More like a tank or fighter jet.

With China making plans towards a potential moon landing, there's a chance of a 2nd space race forming, but to Mars. Not speaking to the odds of that, just saying I could see it developing in the next decade.

Good point, despite all the Mars hype I think primary focus is going to be satellites that carry new kind of weapons and surveillance infrastructure, and establishing a basecamp on moon first.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#406

Post by PaulVYoung »

For me, the best thing about today (among so many wonderful things) is the pure and utter inspirational value of every moment.

I remember being glued to my tv when I watched the first shuttle launch in 81. For me, that inspired a lifelong passion for astronomy, which led to a PhD, and eventually a successful tech career.

Today, I sat with my daughters and watched the launch live and then went outside an hour or so later to watch the dragon (just visible) chase the ISS along the horizon in the twilight. (Needed starwalk and some binoculars to find it).

My 11 year old, was literally jumping up and down with excitement and was still telling me about her plans for Mars when I kissed her goodnight. My 13 year old straight out said, “I want to go to university in the states so I stand a chance of getting a job in that control room.”

This is exactly the sort of think I want my children to witness - what humanity can accomplish when we work together.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#407

Post by nabla9 »

bambataa wrote: post #398

So whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I know they were planning a reusable spaceship that would focus on tourism first. Was the plan just too complex in comparison to the simpler capsule-on-a-rocket approach? Or do the economics not stack up?

Virgin Galactic is not going to orbit. They do suborbital spaceflights.

The difference in effort and energy required is roughly 1:10. They basically just throw people high up so that they can say they have been space.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#408

Post by kortilla »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #301
kortilla wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, it’s “If you build it, they might come.” You only need to look to the history of railroad in the US to see how infrastructure frequently didn’t pay off.

Didn't railroads essentially opened up most of the North American continent?

Yep, but railroads were extremely overbuilt and huge swaths of companies went bankrupt. My point is that despite eventual usage, infrastructure is fraught with wiped out companies.

Look at the Alaskan Railroad for a more recent example.

Look to airships for an example of things that just completely fell out of use or trackless trains.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#409

Post by zxcmx »

philwelch wrote: post #318
jdm2212 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets What I've always heard is the legacy defense contractors are used to cost-plus contracts where you don't make bigger profits by reducing costs. They sometimes don't adapt well to firm-fixed-price contracts because changing the organizational culture takes ages. And also the reality is that they can keep raking in money anyway -- Boeing is in fact coll…

That might be the case, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can turn a bigger profit by making your rockets reusable. Boeing isn't even just a "legacy defense contractor"--a massive part of their business is commercial airliners. That hasn't gone well for them either lately. I think the more reasonable explanation for Boeing is that they already have access to ULA's proven launch vehicles, so designing a…

Yes, and that NASA expected this from them, that is, they were expected to be a credible, reliable-but-expensive (and not particularly innovative) option.
Post reply on HN