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

481–490 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#481

Post by s1artibartfast »

trhway wrote: post #447
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thought of a next-gen trillionaire spending the millions of dollars required to launch a freaking rocket just so he can get to Europe in twenty minutes instead of the couple hours a supersonic airliner would take.. man, talk about ostentatious.

There aren't supersonic airliners. Anyway, let's calculate. Starship having passenger capacity about that of Concord, say 100, would burn 1000 ton, $1M, of fuel and oxygen, per a suborbital transcontinental flight. Capital cost say $100M per Starship. Say amortize over 100 flights. So $20K/ticket. Double for operations. $40K/ticket. I don't see any supersonic in near and mid future coming even close. If I remember co…

That isn’t so far fetched. I pay 5-6k each for several business class trips a year.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#482

Post by runarberg »

bouncycastle wrote: post #366
runarberg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Building a moon-base or mars-base would be an interesting experiment for humans. 1. Have a backup of our species in case something happens to Earth. 2. A great experiment in anthropology! It could help us rethink how we organize life on earth. As far as I see, a moonbase would be a "greenfield project" on land that doesn't belong to any nation, where they have to build everything from scratch. How will they organize?…

Off course we will first solve the problem of terraforming Mars or the moon before we can solve the climate disaster

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#483

Post by nirav72 »

aeturnum wrote: post #205

How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…

probably because one company's revenue depends on government contracts and the other depends on consumers.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#484

Post by runarberg »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #388
losvedir wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe intercontinental travel? I was watching the launch live stream and at one point, they said, "if they abort in this zone, the crew will land just off the coast of Ireland". That was like 9 minutes after liftoff! So if I understand that correctly, if you go to space, you can travel from Florida to Ireland in ~20 minutes?

The thought of a next-gen trillionaire spending the millions of dollars required to launch a freaking rocket just so he can get to Europe in twenty minutes instead of the couple hours a supersonic airliner would take.. man, talk about ostentatious.

Seems like exactly what we need in the midst of our climate emergency.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#485

Post by ShorsHammer »

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…

> Functionalism

Interested what exactly isn't functional about the suits? Most of this post seems to be entirely about looks and outward appearances alone.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#486

Post by pvarangot »

pmorici wrote: post #200
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…

They said during the launch live broadcast that SpaceX intends to fly paying tourists by next year. Apparently many tourists have also visited the space station. https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tour...

Yeah they stopped doing that a while ago and today when watching the launch with friends I was surprised they didn't know it was a thing. When Mark Shuttleworth went there it was all over the tech news.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#487

Post by chiph »

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…

I get the Apollo esthetic (I watched the Skylab missions as a kid on our black & white console TV). But two of the major differences between then and now is cheap computing and additive machining. Cheap computing means you don't need a zillion physical switches for everything. So the cabin is less cluttered and the usability is better.[0]

The advent of additive machining means everything doesn't have to be right angles and hard corners.[1] As a result the cabin will be safer because your astronauts are less likely to be hurt if there is an unanticipated thrust. Parts can also be made to fit better and to closer tolerances.

With regard to the suits - they look far better than the orange shuttle flight suits. I think that having the umbilical on the thigh was a good innovation. No idea how comfortable they are, but they're only going to be worn for launch & entry. I expect Doug & Bob have already put their shorts & t-shirts on.

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/spacex-dragon-l...

[0] I'm a tiny bit disappointed that they didn't go for a 2001 design, with Eurostile Bold Extended fonts. https://typesetinthefuture.com/2014/01/31/2001-a-space-odyss...

[1] Which is the same reason why shift levers in cars are being replaced by knobs and switches - so the passengers don't get hurt by them in an accident.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#488

Post by pvarangot »

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…

For research? If you are thinking for example about microfabbing in space designing an autonomous experiment would be very hard. A lot of cool things could be done with for example adaptive optics if we could manufacture optical elements in space. The technology to align them in orbit is already there. And since it's so expensive to go now a lot of cool ideas like that can't be tried out.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#489

Post by hanniabu »

tdy721 wrote: post #390
yreg wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't physical buttons that you can feel with your touch safer than touch screens?

Not if they weigh so much you don’t make 11.2km/s

Also there's the adaptability aspect. For manual controls you'd need a ton of physical controls and you need the astronauts to know them by heart. With a screen that has an adaptable interface it's much easier UX on the astronaut as the controls increase. Also I'm sure ground control can push an emergency update if need be where you wouldn't quite have that luxury with manual controls.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#490

Post by api »

philwelch wrote: post #228
aeturnum wrote: post #205

How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…

For me the better precedent for Elon's eccentricities might be someone like Henry Ford. Ford was an undeniable genius and innovator in a way that inspired broad admiration, but he was also troublingly paternalistic with his workers--providing above-market pay and benefits but expecting them to live up to his moral standards in their personal lives. He was also a massive sponsor of anti-Semitic publications and, prior…

Howard Hughes feels like a better comparison to Elon Musk.
Post reply on HN