Live data from Hacker News

Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

twitter.com

181–190 of 899 posts

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

#181
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young, there were no rocket landings.

My grandfather recalls (what he later found out to be) a rocket landing in London's east end during his youth. There were quite a lot of them at the time.

"RSD"? (Rapid Scheduled Disassembly)

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

#182
post #154
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not fully reusable. But partial reentry is reentry, something no other rocket had been able to do.

You can’t re-enter if you never leave. If Falcon 9 “survives re-entry” then so do minivans. Falcon 9 is an impressive and revolutionary vehicle. We don’t need to overstate the capabilities.

The Falcon 9 first stage goes past the Karman line and does a reentry burn. It’s not reentering from orbit, but it is from space.

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

#183
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…

For one, Starship+Superheavy will enable launching of large objects like space telescopes without forcing object in question to be engineered with expensive, delicate, failure-prone folding mechanisms (like the James Webb Space Telescope was). Just build the thing as big as it needs to be and launch it in its final form (aside from minor folding bits like solar panels).

It could have similar impact on other scientific missions like rovers and probes. The ceiling for what’s possible is much higher when you’re not having to question the worth of every gram and square millimeter.

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

#185
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.

> in no time

Sure, if a decade is "no time".

5 years from concept to prototype, another 5 years to operational and then another 5 years to full capacity.

Starlink was super quick, but it's design started in 2014.

Iterations on existing concepts like telecom or imaging will be quicker, but truly new fields like mining or tourism are at least a decade out before they're using substantial lift capacity.

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

#186
post #181
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandfather recalls (what he later found out to be) a rocket landing in London's east end during his youth. There were quite a lot of them at the time.

"RSD"? (Rapid Scheduled Disassembly)

German V1 or V2, presumably.

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

#187
post #54
post #3

The rate of descent is absolutely astonishing, 8km -> 1km in 20 seconds, then just hovers above the water. Absolutely incredible work by the SpaceX team. Living in central Florida I cannot wait for the new launch facility to come online. We're going to have lines of spectators into the space coast like we did for the shuttle. If any of you are heading to Disney World you should stop by the NASA Kennedy Visitor Comple…

It's mad how rocket landings are now more exciting than rocket launches.

Same thing with airplanes. The landing is much more important than the takeoff.

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

#188
post #109
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there won't be as many customers purchasing 150-200 tons of lift, but that's the point of "rideshares". All that really matters with space launches is the cost per kg and if it's capable of lifting multiple payloads into multiple orbits, it'll have 10-15 customers per lift, not one. The current model has a kind of pez-dispenser but for chucking out multiple payloads. There are purchasers for the full lift capaci…

If you think about this, it doesn't make a lot of sense because different satellites are going to sit in very different orbits. Geosynchronous satellites are an obvious case where satellites will collect into a limited number of orbits but they vary on what point of the Earth they sit over. Also getting to geostationary orbit takes a lot more fuel so the rocket has less room for payload than, say, low EArth orbit. I'…

The (unproven) target cost per kg of a re-usable starship, from even the most conservative source I could find, was under $300/kg[2]. The next cheapest, the Falcon Heavy, is around $2.3k/kg[1]. The cost difference is astronomical, and so low that it becomes viable send less payload and more orbital adjustment fuel, not to mention its (again, unproven) designed to be refueled in orbit. At that price, you could fly multiple refueling flights and still be under the cost of any other life provider.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship

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

#189

The upper stage re entering was the craziest thing I've seen live. Can't believe it was burning thru the flap and still had a gentle splash down.

Yea, when I saw the flap melt I had wrote it off and was waiting for the explosion. The explosion never came and I was awestruck.
Post reply on HN