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

751–760 of 899 posts

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

#751

Post by DylanSp »

zarzavat wrote: post #692
DylanSp wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a good point, they probably will.

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

#752

Post by larrydag »

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…

For comparison the Statue of Liberty is 93m. Big Ben is 96m.

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

#753

Post by larrydag »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #508
tim333 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

My desktop. My login screen is two Falcon heavy side boosters landing.

My opinion that is biggest fete of engineering in the last decade. Amazing

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

#754

Post by cubefox »

hrnnnnnn wrote: post #653
cubefox wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"will have had", "will have been" - amazing construction

Future perfect and future perfect continuous, respectively, if you're interested in the names.

To give them names destroys the magic a little

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

#755

Post by Paddywack »

dylan604 wrote: post #434
bartread wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thing that tickles me is that it has to slow down to reach terminal velocity rather than the normal way of thinking about objects speeding up to reach terminal velocity.

I’m not a scientist, but is it not at terminal velocity for most of the way down by definition? So it’s not slowing down to reach terminal velocity, it’s just that the resistance becomes higher thus reducing terminal velocity?

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

#756

Post by erkt »

tsimionescu wrote: post #669
inglor_cz wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, they did. Being a sailor was about the most dangerous profession that you could choose, including the military. Until today, some jobs at sea are pretty dangerous. Being a fisherman in Alaskan waters is much more risky than being an (American, not Russian) soldier. People still do it. Which convinces me that people will risk their lives going to Mars, and more than a few of them. Some people are just built t…

People risk their lives for high-risk, high-reward jobs. They don't risk their lives for high-risk, no-Reward explorations.

This is ridiculous. People risk their lives for pretty views and brief moments of adrenaline. I would advise you to touch grass, but you might not want to risk a cut.

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

#757

Post by schmidtleonard »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #629
schmidtleonard wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but also the propellant explodes after being pumped in, so you pump in a tiny volume and exhaust an enormous volume.

You pump in a huge volume and exhaust an inconceivable volume

That's fair, lol.

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

#758

Post by erkt »

mcmoor wrote: post #690
inglor_cz wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that no one feels highly rewarded by exploring wilderness? Generations of explorers, many of whom lost their lives for no gain, indicate otherwise. Let us make a thought experiment. Let's say that Musk, tomorrow, declares "we are now creating a list of future Mars colonists, reasonably healthy individuals under 70 can apply from anywhere in the world, please send us your resumes". Would they get fewer…

I guess there'd still be. Finding one that's also competent enough to be trusted to lead the mission will be quite hard tho.

You know we generally have those adrenaline junkies lead most missions? Apollo 17 was literally the first Apollo mission NOT led by a test pilot.

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

#759

Post by me_me_me »

tialaramex wrote: post #219
SoftTalker wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German V1 or V2, presumably.

Only the V2 is a rocket, the V1 is a flying bomb. They're both terror weapons, as actual products they have no direct military value, they exist solely in order to scare the shit out of enemy civilians, but liquid fuelled rockets are an invention with a whole lot of interesting practical applications - the V1 is just a bad idea (unless you have unlimited resources, which the Germans did not, and your goal is to terri…

I agree with all but last statement

> and your goal is to terrify enemy civilians, which is not a legitimate military strategy

That just doesnt work, pretty much never. Yes civilians will be terrified but that is all you will achieve. It holds true during 2nd world war, it holds true now with every single ongoing conflict.

Going after civilians changes nothing, often results in the opposite - even harder resistance.

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

#760

Post by DiggyJohnson »

parasense wrote: post #639
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.

Not to down play StarLink, but actually... this amazing impressive reliable video stream is capable from any orbiting satelite. What's different here is that Starship is so massively huge, something like several meters in diameter, like maybe 7~9 meters, or something like that. Anyhoo, that the interference from the plasma envelope... does not fully envelope the whole rocket. There is a bunch of surface on the backsi…

The restricted geometry means that Starlink is the only constellation with enough coverage to keep the link up (and even then it can't get a connection for moments of the decent). It's completely accurate to say that only Starship and Starlink could pull this off. You would have to imagine a fictional constellation to say "any satelite can communicate".
Post reply on HN