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

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

#371

Post by tim333 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:09 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #344

bearjaws wrote: 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…

The 'worst' thing about watching space launches on streams is that you simply cannot grasp how ridiculously huge these things are. Even if, like in the stream today, you see a water tower for some scale, the size discrepancies just make it so hard to intuit. Starship is 121 meters high. That's something taller than a football field, jetting off into space! I've only gotten to see a decommissioned Space Shuttle in per…

I've got the black and white arty photo as my lockscreen which gives you an idea https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/E46BxzjjUkpthVBNE6k8mn-192...

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

#372

Post by abulman » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:11 PM UTC

spdif899 wrote: post #308

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "hole" in the plasma in the wake of the re-entering Starship due to its shape. They used Starlink terminals to beam the data up to Starlink satellites. Starlink also uses higher frequency signals than older systems and that also helps.

I'm not sure if they have shared details but I assume this leaves a relatively narrow window over the ship that they need to put a satellite, which would be really cool to see more on logistically. Like how do you move a satellite or satellites to a certain area, at the right time, avoiding other space objects, and then keep them there for 45 minutes during the mission or at least 15 minutes during the blackout zone.…

They might do some minor optimisation in terms of when the fly to keep some coverage but ...

> As of May 2024, there are 6,078 Starlink satellites in orbit, of which 6,006 are working - https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

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

#373

Post by dotnet00 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:11 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #344

bearjaws wrote: 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…

The 'worst' thing about watching space launches on streams is that you simply cannot grasp how ridiculously huge these things are. Even if, like in the stream today, you see a water tower for some scale, the size discrepancies just make it so hard to intuit. Starship is 121 meters high. That's something taller than a football field, jetting off into space! I've only gotten to see a decommissioned Space Shuttle in per…

I only live close enough to be able to see Enterprise, which didn't go to space, but I like to go there at least once a year, just because seeing the sheer size of it and knowing that all the Shuttles were like that is inspiring (the SR-71 helps too). I'm planning a trip to the space coast when family visits next year though.

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

#374

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:12 PM UTC

notact wrote: post #217

pixl97 wrote: post #68

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

Can someone explain why reentry must be so hellish? The energy gained during the rocket burn into orbit must be bled off during reentry, and that energy is enormous. However, why must reentry occur so quickly? It seems if the descent into the atmosphere was slower, the heat shield would be able to radiate the heat energy away more effectively, thus lowering skin temperatures, and significantly reducing the engineerin…

Slowing down from Mach 20-something takes a huge amount of energy in its own right.

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

#375

Post by jstanley » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #371

somenameforme wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'worst' thing about watching space launches on streams is that you simply cannot grasp how ridiculously huge these things are. Even if, like in the stream today, you see a water tower for some scale, the size discrepancies just make it so hard to intuit. Starship is 121 meters high. That's something taller than a football field, jetting off into space! I've only gotten to see a decommissioned Space Shuttle in per…

I've got the black and white arty photo as my lockscreen which gives you an idea https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/E46BxzjjUkpthVBNE6k8mn-192...

It reminds me of the old photos of builders eating their lunch atop half-finished skyscrapers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunch_atop_a_Skyscraper

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

#376

Post by vl » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

avmich wrote: post #314

seydor wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how many of those things are there?

> how many of those things are there? Apollo program flew once in 6 months. If we're to build a Moon base, we're going to have at least this frequency of flights - really, I'd prefer to have a great margin on top of that, because Moon is much harder than LEO, and we might need more resiliency to safely explore. Each flight to the Moon will likely need to involve 10-20 Starship flights (rough number) to LEO. So even i…

Mars launch window is every two years. It is very inefficient to launch at other times.

As for moon, I'm surprised with the estimate you have provided. Apollo needed just one launch for each mission. Even if SpaceX will do orbital re-fueling, it's just two-three launches, why would you need more?

BTW, the idea of getting heavy Starship to the moon and back is interesting, but at the end flying the vehicle optimized for re-entry far away and back is suboptimal. My prediction that they quickly will go to specialized LEO-LMO vehicles with LEO re-fueling.

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

#377

Post by dcdc123 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

bearjaws wrote: 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…

The Houston center is amazing as well! They have a tour where you get to sit in the guest theater/gallery of the original command room and watch a shortened version of the moon landing with all the controls, monitors, projectors, etc all automated to show what was presented during the original landing.

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

#378

Post by dotnet00 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #349

thelittleone wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone on the Everyday Astronaut live stream named it "Flap Norris".

I wonder what the odds are that some deep sea salvage group is moving to collect that this very instant (or being contracted for such). If Starship lives up to even a fraction of its potential, that [not so] little guy is going to have some serious historicity.

They had a plane flying in the area shortly after landing, probably to drop some marker for a group to come around and recover the black box. I think they've stopped bothering with preserving the test articles though, in the process of test driven development, they're going to have so many "historic" test articles, that it's kind of pointless.

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

#379

Post by bartread » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

bearjaws wrote: 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…

The way the booster comes down is nuts. 90km to 1km in 100 seconds, it reaches maximum velocity under gravity at a bit over 20km, then air resistance acts as a brake, and they only fire the engines to slow it down the rest of the way at 1km. Bonkers.

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

#380

Post by avmich » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #236

zpeti wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok great, you’re definitely right, let’s not do it. What now? Will Elon stop? If Elon doesn’t stop, does that make you right?

I'm not saying it's impossible to send people to Mars and even bring them back. I'm saying there is no point whatsoever right now, at least no material or scientific purpose. Of course, building a "city" on Mars is well beyond our capabilities, so that will either not be attempted at all, or it will fail. Maybe by 2124, but more likely 2524.

> I'm saying there is no point whatsoever right now, at least no material or scientific purpose.

"No point" here means "no reasonable goal". In this case reasonability is subjective - somebody sees obvious reasons why Mars colony could be useful for humanity, somebody doesn't. Pro arguments are science, learning how to live off another planet, certain insurance against planet-wide cataclysms, general progress in space engineering. There are contra arguments as well, but which are more important is also subjective - we don't have hard data or commonly accepted facts which would solve this arguments one way or another, so, to some, it's natural to investigate the matter further...