Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 899 posts

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

#611

Post by FredPret »

xcv123 wrote: post #588
FredPret wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allied options were: 1. Invade. Expected Allied casualties of 300k all the way to much more than a million. Expected Japanese casualties: tens of millions, perhaps up to literally all of them. Previous Japanese strongholds fought to the last man, earlier in the war the Allies invaded an island with 11000 Japanese soldiers, and I think 47 of those eventually surrendered. The rest died. The civilian populations on thes…

6. Accept Japan's request for peace negotiations. Stop fighting and begin negotiating their conditional surrender.

And let them continue to fuck up China and the whole Pacific region, only to come back swinging a couple of decades later

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

#612

Post by FredPret »

pdonis wrote: post #582
FredPret wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allied options were: 1. Invade. Expected Allied casualties of 300k all the way to much more than a million. Expected Japanese casualties: tens of millions, perhaps up to literally all of them. Previous Japanese strongholds fought to the last man, earlier in the war the Allies invaded an island with 11000 Japanese soldiers, and I think 47 of those eventually surrendered. The rest died. The civilian populations on thes…

Your survey of the options is basically the one that the US government put out after the war to push back against criticism. However, historical scholarship since then has shown that it wasn't that simple. First, there is no evidence of any actual casualty estimates made during the war that were anywhere near as high as the ones you give in option 1. Those numbers were made up after the war. The wartime estimates wer…

First, the casualty estimates are just for US soldiers and is likely low. They fough against Japanese troops with a kill ratio of between 1:1 and 1:20 (in favor of the Marines) so it’s easy to extrapolate massive US casualties when fighting the then 80 million strong Japanese on home soil.

I don’t know much about the second point, so you may be right.

Third, you have to look at stats, not emotions. Battle deaths - in absolute terms and per capita - dropped like a stone after 1945.

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

#613

Post by me_me_me »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #443
me_me_me wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ve been mars-capable since Apollo. serious citation needed! you cant make shit up. Apollo and saturn5 were nowhere near getting humans to mars. Not even close. It got us to moon with bare minimum. A weekend trip vs 6 months trip. The scale up of needed resources is mind boggling. At every step. I mean pick any step and explain how Apollo could achieve it.

You can read up on Mars Direct for more info. The gist of it is that the Saturn V has enough delta v to get to Mars, on the count of Mars having an atmosphere, which can be used for aerobraking. Given the capability of reaching Mars with a Saturn V, the rest of the plan revolved around using Apollo hardware, with some modification, for both transport and habitats(re-use of empty stages featured prominently). Ultimate…

That is debatable at best, a crewed flight to mars is 8 months, crew of 3

You have roughly 40t at best for a craft that needs to land there.

quick google. astronauts need around 1.7kg of food per day, x3 crew, x(8x30) days is:

thats 1200 kg of food - one way - just to get there food.

And then you are doing to do what exactly?

> the rest of the plan revolved around using Apollo hardware, with some modification, for both transport and habitats(re-use of empty stages featured prominently).

This is basically handwaving problems away, massive problems.

The best I can agree is that a crewed fly-by could have been possible. But landing on mars would mean death sooner or later.

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

#614

Post by adolph »

cubefox wrote: post #583
pixl97 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the old rocket landings threw away 90%+ of the rocket first. Minus the hot staging ring and some molten metal almost all of this rocket was present at both its landings.

I wonder how much earlier a rocket like Falcon 9 (with automatic landing of the lower stage) could realistically have been developed and built. In the 70s? 80s? 90s?

I think even into the 90s it would be difficult from a compute and sensor perspective.

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

#615

Post by mensetmanusman »

amelius wrote: post #475
vl wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even more impressive to me is that they were able to quite reliably stream all this through Starlink. This shows how mature and usable Starlink is. The fact that you can have live internet connection on re-entering space ship - truly the future is here.

The video isn't really live. The original may have had buffering problems, etc.

Nothing is live, not even conversations with people in the same room, 1 ns per ft delayed.

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

#616

Post by adolph »

pixl97 wrote: post #417
adolph wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I was young, there were no rocket landings. For all born after July 1969, you lived with rocket landings: Apollo lunar lander was a propulsive soft landing.

I mean the old rocket landings threw away 90%+ of the rocket first. Minus the hot staging ring and some molten metal almost all of this rocket was present at both its landings.

The flying bedstead of 1964 was a reusable rocket that propulsively la ded and was reused. It didn’t go very high tho. . .

https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/flying-bedstead/

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

#617

Post by ridgeguy »

pxmpxm wrote: post #606
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…

[flagged]

The on-site audience might have access to milestones the rest of us don't see, hence the "for no apparent reason" cheers.

I'm delighted by the cheers. They're doing amazing things, and I'm pleased by their passion.

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

#618

Post by pdonis »

FredPret wrote: post #608
pdonis wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those things the Japanese did were "outrages", so were the things the US, Britain, and other European countries did to build their empires. The Japanese viewed their actions as simply taking their rightful place as an imperial power alongside those other countries. Yes, by today's standards, or at least today's Western standards, such things are Not Done, but if we are going to judge WW II Japan by those standards…

Point me to the rapes of Nanking the allies did. Or maybe just stop spreading Soviet propaganda.

> Point me to the rapes of Nanking the allies did.

The Soviets were allies. Look up what they did in Germany at the end of WW II. And that's not even looking at all the other atrocities they had perpetrated before the war started, many of them on their own people.

Also, the empire building I referred to on the part of the US, Britain, and other European countries took place well before WW II. That doesn't mean it can just be ignored.

> Or maybe just stop spreading Soviet propaganda.

It seems to me that you are the one spreading Soviet propaganda since you are not even acknowledging the moral implications of having the Soviets as allies in WW II.

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

#619

Post by dotnet00 »

szundi wrote: post #398

All enthusiast people, just buy the Kerbal Space Program (1, not the 2), play it through. Then play it without reloading saves. That’s something!! And then, install the RP-1 mod and get blown away. I have 2k hours in this game, worth every of those hours.

Don't forget Principia! The stock orbital mechanics make RSS too easy.

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

#620

Post by vl »

avmich wrote: post #557
vl wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don’t have to fuel it fully to go to the moon and back. It’s a bit hard to compare to Apollo since Apollo dropped stages at every step of the process, but it seems they used 70 tons of fuel in the third state of Saturn V for original trans lunar injection of 45 ton Apollo. Apollo itself was 2/3 fuel. So it’s ratio of 15 tons to 90 tons. I.e. 1/6.

> But you don’t have to fuel it fully to go to the moon and back. Numbers: from LEO (low Earth orbit) to TLI (translunar injection) - approx. 3.1 km/s; from Moon hyperbolic to LMO (low Moon orbit) - approx. 0.8 km/s; from LMO to the Moon surface - 1.6 km/s, back to LMO - 1.6 km/s, total - 7.1 km.s . Numbers are optimistic, no errors. You absolutely, positively have to add delta-V for landing, Apollo LEMs, for example…

Yes, you are correct, I forgot about payload. With payload my estimate produces full refueling as well.
Post reply on HN