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

691–700 of 899 posts

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

#691

Post by voidUpdate »

cududa wrote: post #387
avmich wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really expect SpaceX to have more cameras, and to have some shielding - maybe so that cameras would get open shields at different points in flight, so they'd be protected before that. We only saw left-back flap, I suspect there's a camera looking also on right-back flap, maybe towards the engines section too. SpaceX is known to have rich telemetry, that would be awesome to see.

Can you please explain how exactly you would heat shield a camera? Like, your suggestion is a box attached to the ship that changes its aerodynamic profile, with an actuator that can be a point of failure/ fly off and hit other critical instruments? They have lots of cameras. Were we watching the same video? The thing got absolutely melted and you’re complaining that you didn’t get a front row seat? 5 short years ago…

You could protect it in the same way they shielded the pad cameras during apollo (such as the E-8 camera https://youtu.be/DKtVpvzUF1Y), with a quartz shield

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

#692

Post by zarzavat »

DylanSp wrote: post #473
thelittleone wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Heard SpaceX commentator today saying they plan 4 launch towers in near term. Hopefully the major issues that lead to FAA investigations are resolved and the cadence can ramp up. Probably won't be long before Starship's launch as often as Falcon 9s today.

The FAA's license authorization for this flight mentioned that they wouldn't require a full mishap investigation unless someone got hurt, property got damaged, or debris fell outside the designated areas, so the turnaround for approving the next flight should be pretty quick. https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798089390708687106 has the full text.

This says failure of Raptor during landing is excepted from investigation, doesn’t that imply that FAA will have to investigate the failure of Raptor during launch?

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

#693

Post by eichin »

cududa wrote: post #387
avmich wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really expect SpaceX to have more cameras, and to have some shielding - maybe so that cameras would get open shields at different points in flight, so they'd be protected before that. We only saw left-back flap, I suspect there's a camera looking also on right-back flap, maybe towards the engines section too. SpaceX is known to have rich telemetry, that would be awesome to see.

Can you please explain how exactly you would heat shield a camera? Like, your suggestion is a box attached to the ship that changes its aerodynamic profile, with an actuator that can be a point of failure/ fly off and hit other critical instruments? They have lots of cameras. Were we watching the same video? The thing got absolutely melted and you’re complaining that you didn’t get a front row seat? 5 short years ago…

Also we'll probably see footage from the other external cameras later like we did with the third launch... at very least, the opposite fin had one, and the interstage camera; plus there are 11 internal cameras...

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

#694

Post by gabesullice »

cletus wrote: post #299
jwells89 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scientifi…

So JWST has (IIRC) a 6.5 meter mirror once deployed and yes, it was a challenge to develop that tech. Plus it added risk of failure. The Starship Super-heavy seems to have a max payload dimension of 9 meters. I imagine some buffer is required (ie it won't just allow a static 9 meter mirror) but I could be wrong. So that's larger but not that much larger. Remember the JWST was a huge step up from Hubble's 2.4 meter mi…

I agree that it you can fold it up, sure, go for a bigger mirror. But widening the mass constraints will also be a game changer.

As for the commercial market, I think it opens up a new branch of materials science for high-end manufacturing by making zero G financially accessible. E.g. growing crystals or perfectly spherical things. If you or I already knew exactly how that would be valuable, we'd already looking for seed investment ;)

Also, let's conservatively estimate its payload to be 50 tons and triple the target launch cost to $30 million. That's $6000 per 10 kgs.

If there's a regularly scheduled flight to Korea/Japan, how many manufacturing and mining operations that are offline for want of a critical part would be willing to pay upwards of $6000 to take delivery of a 10 kilo part in <24 hours when they're losing a few thousand dollars per minute?

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

#695

Post by fooker »

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?

70s no. 80s maybe, depends on clever use of computing. 90s yes.

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

#696

Post by rvnx »

simiones wrote: post #241
_glass wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but it's in your text/comment. The logical thing is that it makes 0 sense. Columbus to not take the real circumference makes 0 sense. Let's go to Mars, start a civilization there. It'll be a lot of change for us humans. And only if you live somewhere you can really solve problems. Maybe it's a good plan against a nuclear war, whatever.

Columbus was just wrong, he was not motivated by some higher goal. And no, it's not a good plan against a nuclear war, Mars is far far far less hospitable than the Earth would be if we launched all of the nuclear weapons we have today. It's far more radioactive, dusty, cold, toxic, and everything.

The tech we developed for Mars can become useful for the Earth of tomorrow, once World War III finishes.

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

#697

Post by matheusmoreira »

I watched the atmosphere eat away at the stainless steel in real time and in first person point of view. Beautiful gradients of plasma... And then this thing somehow still managed to maneuver, lit up its engines and splash down gracefully. Astonishing.

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

#698

Post by blkhawk »

voidUpdate wrote: post #691
cududa wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please explain how exactly you would heat shield a camera? Like, your suggestion is a box attached to the ship that changes its aerodynamic profile, with an actuator that can be a point of failure/ fly off and hit other critical instruments? They have lots of cameras. Were we watching the same video? The thing got absolutely melted and you’re complaining that you didn’t get a front row seat? 5 short years ago…

You could protect it in the same way they shielded the pad cameras during apollo (such as the E-8 camera https://youtu.be/DKtVpvzUF1Y ), with a quartz shield

A quartz shield doesn't help if it gets coated in iron by a hot plasma. I think the only solution would be sveral shields you can jettison.

The glas used would probably be ok if the flaps held up.

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

#699

Post by lupusreal »

pdonis wrote: post #553
stctw wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to say that now. Have you lived through unrestricted, total warfare, where one side intends to conquer a continent or the world, invades without provocation, and won't stop until brought to submission through extreme force? The Allies did not initiate war and did not want war. How many of your country's people should you sacrifice to end a war of aggression started by the enemy? Should you not use the means…

> one side intends to conquer a continent or the world, invades without provocation, and won't stop until brought to submission through extreme force? The Allies did not initiate war and did not want war. "The Allies" included the Soviet Union, which did initiate war--against Finland, against Poland, against Japan (this in the 1930s, before historians say WW II started)--and wanted even more war, hoping that all of t…

Is that meant to be an oblique reference to the meme that America "initiated war" with Japan by choosing not to literally fuel Japans imperial ambitions? This reddit take is the most moronic of them all (and if this is what you're talking about, you got the decade wrong.) Japan was not entitled to foreign oil, nor the foreign land they intended to take by force using that oil, and America choosing not to give it to them was not a declaration of war. The war between Japan and half the world was started by Japan's own ambition.

If you wanted to make the case that America started it you would have to go back to the 1850s when America rudely introduced them to modern gunboat diplomacy. But for that argument you would need to read a damn book instead of parroting any fool opinion you learned on Reddit.

Post reply on HN