Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico • Hacker News Board

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#131

Post by mulmen » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

Laremere wrote: post #121

ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Holy shit, that was incredible. One of the fins burned half away and still managed to control for a soft splashdown. https://imgur.com/a/zNXUjbt

The other external view we got was mounted on one of the other flaps, and we didn't get footage from it even after the camera we did get was obscured. So some amount of damage/overheating on multiple fins is likely.

I was wondering how much video bandwidth they have. Do they have all angles streaming all the time and they switch in the booth or can they only capture one video feed at a time? With that fin melting they may have just elected to stay focused on it.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#132

Post by andruby » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #70

The guy that designed the flaps of the main starship needs a raise. The thing was glowing red hot, almost disassembled and still functioned and they managed to do a second splashdown. Amazing work from the Spacex team.

The fact that the flap survived is amazing design indeed!

I wouldn't assume it's 1 guy though, probably a team, or a woman for that matter.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#133

Post by cletus » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

lazysheepherd wrote: post #103

cletus wrote: post #52

So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…

Payloads are designed according to available spacecraft capabilities. When this thing flies, market will form around it in no time.

I'm skeptical because satellites, like pretty much any technology, tend to get smaller over time. I remember reading about how it was profitable for someone to buy up 4 geostationary slots and replace 4 satellites with 1 that was probably smaller than any of the 4 (because geostationary slots can be incredibly valuable).

There are large bespoke payloads (eg JWST) but these are inherently so expensive anyway the launch vehicle costs almost don't matter.

I'm not yet convinced there's a huge demand for super heavy payloads.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#134

Post by consumer451 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #68

What the hell, half melted starship actually did the landing flip and hit the ocean slow!!! That was amazing!

Do we have Navy assets nearby to destroy it, or is it just going to bob around in the Indian ocean? Or will we trigger the abort system now?

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#135

Post by gibolt » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

liamkinne wrote: post #104

ceejayoz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and what a useful recording for "where do we buff up the heat protection?"

Survivorship bias!

Hopefully the takeaway is something straightforward, like thicker shielding in one area and not a big redesign of the flaps

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#136

Post by db48x » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

arrowsmith wrote: post #45

sbuttgereit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plan never was to retrieve this one. It was to simulate a landing, but over the ocean and then sink. That looks like it happened successfully... of course we'll need to wait to hear if it actually did things like hover in the right spot, etc. But looked pretty good; despite what looked like some issues with engine lights.

Is there a better video then the one in the link? 90% of the screen in this one is taken up by the ocean and it's not clear at all what is happening.

It made a vertical “landing” burn and touched down on the surface of the ocean. Then it fell over, for the obvious reasons. How was that not clear?

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#137

Post by snapplebobapple » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

tssva wrote: post #86

neverrroot wrote: post #73

Incredible. And still, the guy who makes things possible again and again gets a lot of poison thrown his way. Human nature at work. On both sides.

Getting things done and being a shitty human being aren’t mutually exclusive.

I cant think of any modern examples of people that did a rapid wealth ascent that dont also have a substantial number of haters (modern being after the low hanging fruit of basic service provision as a path to wealth being filled in the 2 decades after ww2, leaving only disruption through much better business process paths to wealth ascent). So i think being viewed as a shitty human by a subset of people and getting things done probablly are mutually exclusive.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#138

Post by furyofantares » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

harperlee wrote: post #35

ipnon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did not land. The plan was not to attempt a landing. But it maintained a controlled descent into the ocean and splashed down upright.

Honest question, did they sink the remaining fuel? Or did they just burnt all remaining fuel whilst hovering? I would imagine that's pretty toxic. Edit: Thanks for the answers!

I'm just happy so many people got to show off their knowledge of rocket fuel in response to this comment

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#139

Post by gravescale » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

lazysheepherd wrote: post #103

cletus wrote: post #52

So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…

Payloads are designed according to available spacecraft capabilities. When this thing flies, market will form around it in no time.

Why is there's always an Akin's law?

> 38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.

https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#140

Post by bell-cot » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #84

bell-cot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd put Starship Soft Landing first. That's easy and safe-ish to try in a remote location. Vs. any little oopies on a Booster Catch could damage a load of high-value infrastructure.

>I'd put Starship Soft Landing first. So that just happened. Been even better if the camera wasn't mostly melted, but looked like a slow enough landing.

(I figured "Landing" implied "dry land". Or at least a dry barge deck. Beyond the obviously-greater precision needed - a soft & dry landing is paradise for post-flight engineering analysis.)