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

851–860 of 899 posts

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

#851

Post by pfannkuchen »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #817
pfannkuchen wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The entire world” down to “half of Poland” may be the theoretically largest goalpost move possible (on Earth, anyway).

How about "don't invade your neighbors" to "half of Poland" itself being an absurd goalpost move? The default is to _not_ invade.

The topic of discussion isn’t whether to invade! It’s whether there was a realistic threat of Germany invading either all of Europe or the entire world, and separately whether the allies were in fact practicing what they preached. That is what I was replying to in the GP, which I explicitly quoted! The goalpost move was the topic being changed from world invasion to Poland invasion.

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

#852

Post by themaninthedark »

pdonis wrote: post #850
themaninthedark wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out and the fighting would have continued.

> without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out That's not clear either. Without the atomic bomb they might well have found another way to save face.

If the argument is that "We can't say that the atomic bombs were the catalyst for Japan surrendering because the surrender happened after a bombing and Soviet war declaration therefor they are confounding factors" then the same holds true for the argument that the Soviet invasion was the catalyst for surrender.

Now I will say that I have not read Hasegawa's book but Wikipedia says that it is "challenging the widely accepted orthodox view that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most decisive factor in Japan's decision to surrender ending the war against Japan."

It will be interesting to read but it looks like that it is not the accepted theory and that primary sources from the era were destroyed on all sides.

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

#853

Post by tsimionescu »

hrnnnnnn wrote: post #746
tsimionescu wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're both future perfect I believe, of the verbs "to have" and "to be". Future perfect continuous is "will have been filming", this was "will have been fine".

What's the difference between those two?

"Will have been filming" is the future perfect continuous form of the verb "to film", while "will have been blue" is the future perfect form of the verb "to be", with "blue" as a subject complement.

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

#854

Post by czl »

philwelch wrote: post #835
czl wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 99 years between the Napoleonic and First World Wars were the most peaceful 99 years of European history since at least the Roman Empire; You make a good point about the "Long Peace" between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. While there were indeed several conflicts during this period, they were generally shorter and more localized. The Revolutions of 1848, which affected many European countries. The Russo-T…

> And there are others that I missed For instance, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, where the German Empire you seem to idolize was effectively born. Also the same war that gave the German Empire a degree of overconfidence about their chances against France. > however had Britain remained neutral and not created alliances that it knew would put it in conflict with Germany is it possible that the Germany vs. Russia co…

> Did Britain create the alliance between France and Russia?

Britain did not create the alliance between France and Russia - that alliance was formed independently in 1894 as a counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Britain's casus belli for entering WWI in 1914 was Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality, not any direct alliance obligations.

However, I would argue that Britain's shift away from "splendid isolation" and toward the Entente with France and Russia in the early 1900s, while stopping short of hard alliance commitments, still had the effect of emboldening France and Russia in their disputes with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 in particular eased long-standing tensions between Britain and Russia.

So in that sense, while Britain didn't create the Franco-Russian alliance, British diplomatic moves in the pre-war years did strengthen the Entente bloc and alter the balance of power in a way that made France and Russia less likely to back down in a crisis. A more fervently neutral Britain may have left France and Russia feeling less confident.

> My contention is that if Britain was less neutral and more proactive about creating alliances that could put it in conflict with Germany, they could have successfully deterred the First World War.

In the lead-up to WWI, there was a prevailing belief among European powers that any war would be short. Many did not foresee how devastating and prolonged the conflict would become. So even a more hardline British policy may not have been seen as a strong enough deterrent in 1914. Additionally, a more assertive Britain risked further inflaming tensions and sparking a crisis. The European alliance system meant any conflict had the potential to spiral out of control - more British alliances could have simply added fuel to the fire. And if war came, Britain would then be obligated to join from the start, rather than having the option to stay out.

> German Empire you seem to idolize was effectively born

I disagree with your characterization that I "idolize" the German Empire. My argument is that the outbreak of World War I was primarily caused by the "Thucydides Trap" dynamic - the dangerous instability that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace an established power. In this case, Germany's rise in the late 19th/early 20th century threatened the European balance of power that had long been anchored by British dominance.

I don't believe in the simplistic "evil Germans started WWI" narrative that was promoted by the war's victors. This narrative served to justify the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles placed on Germany, which most historians agree was a key factor in the rise of Nazism and the eventual outbreak of World War II 20 years later.

Portraying it simplistically as "evil Germans" against the noble Allies is not productive and does not do justice to the immense tragedy of the war and its aftermath.

My contention is we should strive to analyze this world-shaping event objectively and resist nation-centric narratives shaped by wartime propaganda. I believe examining it through the lens of great power competition and the "Thucydides Trap" is a more constructive approach.

If you have evidence showing that I "idolize" Imperial Germany, I would appreciate if you could quote where I expressed those sentiments. But I suspect this is a misreading of my arguments about the war's root causes.

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

#855

Post by thelittleone »

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?

Saw a post TF4 interview with Musk where he said they will go for catch next flight unless there are some known issues during post flight analysis. He also said that the booster landed around 6km from its initial target landing coordinates. I hope that doesn't mean another ocean landing to stick the coordinates before trying chopsticks, but either way can't wait.

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

#856

Post by cubefox »

cryptonector wrote: post #839
cubefox wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, they don’t actually have to land it 500 times - all they need is an engineering analysis That very analysis will include the fact that they have no launch abort system like normal capsule based systems and that the belly flop landing is much more dangerous than landing a capsule. Space Shuttle memories may come to mind. So the only realistic way to get the 1 in 500 confidence would probably be to really la…

Starship separation from booster could be the launch abort system. There is no landing abort system. My concern is that the flip maneuver is just too risky for landing with people on board even if Starship manages to do 200 perfect landings in a row (that would be a better record than the Shuttle).

I guess one factor which makes it less bad is that Starship can throttle its engines to hover (Falcon 9 can only throttle them down completely in a "suicide burn", which leaves no possibility of hovering in place). Starship also uses multiple engines for the landing. So if one fails, it still has a few others left, and perhaps even enough time to start another one.

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

#857

Post by HPsquared »

ActorNightly wrote: post #514
magicalhippo wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried what you said in the most realistic simulator we have, Kerbal Space Program, assuming like you that a gentler approach would be better. And I learned that no, that most certainly is not better. What you need to protect is on the inside of the heat shield. Heat conduction is based on temperature difference and time[1] and the conduction of the material[2]. Since the heat shield tiles have a very low thermal co…

What happens if you do a geostationary deorbit? I.e straight down.

Coriolis force. If a geostationary satellite was instantaneously accelerated straight down towards the Earth, its path (from Earth's perspective) would not be straight down as its original circumferential velocity at geostationary orbit (pi * geostationary orbit diameter * Earth radial velocity) would be "too high" when the altitude is lower.

To continue moving "straight down" its angular velocity would need to be constant, which means as its altitude decreases the circumferential velocity would need to decrease. But gravity only pulls down, there's no force to accelerate it in that direction. So therefore it appears to curve off to the side.

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

#858

Post by tim333 »

krisoft wrote: post #822
tim333 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno. I found a youtube of drone footage of flying around starship and I think the camera is pointing south west like this (time set to 6 seconds in) https://youtu.be/0sA9rGc80Y4?t=6 whereas from the tower it would be looking north east. Even if you can get the resolution from a drone camera, the shot looks like someone spent quite a while lining everything up to look nice and like the historic NY pic.

> Re image quality, beyond the resolution it looks like someone spent a while getting things lined up nicely? I don't know. There are really good drone photographers. They have remote controls for all the settings, and remote viewing is also possible. They could have lined it up with the drone. Or made the photo with even higher resolution and cropped it to perfection. Or made hundreds of photos and selected the best…

Ok. I now think it was a drone.

There is footage here that looks like it might be from that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5DXe_65J8&t=52s

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

#859

Post by panick21_ »

me_me_me wrote: post #604
panick21_ wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe next time you could do some research before making a bunch of claims. > The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon. From an energy perspective its not that much more complex. And from a living perspective, yes it is an order of magnitude, but guess what, the ship is also an order of magnitude bigger. Meaning that for a small crew you have enough space for training rooms, labs, li…

I am reading this and I can't believe it. Was this written by chatgtp? > From an energy perspective its not that much more complex. As in what exactly? Its not much more complex because you have to 'burn to moon' and 'burn to mars' which is pretty much the same because you need energy to do both?? Here, have a look at required deltaV. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of... how is this 'From a…

If you don't understand my comment on the energy perspective you shouldn't comment on the topic.

> What ship?!? Labs, medical facilities wtf r u smoking.

The Starship. SpaceX is currently building an interior for the Moon Lander together with NASA that will have those things.

For a small crew its totally possible to have this. Not sure what to tell you.

> And why dont you mention how many fueling launches you need to go to the moon in an essentially 'space liferaft' vs an actual spaceship needed to get to mars?? hm?

I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say ...

Yes, it needs to be refuelled a number of time. So what?? hm?

Falcon 9 is literally launching every 5 days right now and it wasn't even designed with rapid reuse in mind.

> How? Just how is that infrastructure going to get there deploy itself and... it boggles my mind how you handwave the solutions to colonising a fucking planet.

I don't know why haters like you are so hung up with colonising. Colonising starts small. The solutions in the beginning wont be the solutions 50-100 years later. So criticising the current architecture with 'it can't do colonisation' is fucking stupid. Thanks captain obvious.

In the beginning its about establishing a research base that can be continously inhabited. If that can be achieved its fucking fantastic. And from there it grows or it doesn't.

And in terms of how. There are these things called wheels....

There are plenty of designs around for different aspects of the architecture. You haven't addressed any of them.

> Sure mate, you played minecraft and all you need is a crafting table on mars and whabang infrastructure poof icewater mining and puryfing faclities "shazam* and your farm is ready! So easy, who thought.

Those things would be built on earth. So your comment doesn't even fucking make sense.

Its not easy to do these things but you have not made any actual argument that its not possible or harder then other parts. Building the Raptor engine is hard, a lot harder then a device that takes oxygen out of the atmosphere. Building a device to collect water is hard, but a hell of a lot easier then building Starship.

You argument is basically just asserting things you don't know much about and then making childish insults.

Its funny how there are 10000s of really smart scientist and engineers that are working on different aspects of these problems and they all believe they can be overcome. But I am sure you are just so much smarter and more enlightened then all those people. Go stand in front off a mirror and pat yourself on the back buddy.

> Who is going to pay for all of it, and why would you do it in a first place? Cuz you are not setting up a colony, you are setting up the most expensive treehouse.

That's fantastic. I didn't know you were that optimistic. A continuously inhabited house on Mars would be absolutely fucking amazing. One might even say its a colony. Because, guess what, that's how colonies started.

Glad I could convince you.

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

#860

Post by panick21_ »

cwillu wrote: post #717
me_me_me wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading this and I can't believe it. Was this written by chatgtp? > From an energy perspective its not that much more complex. As in what exactly? Its not much more complex because you have to 'burn to moon' and 'burn to mars' which is pretty much the same because you need energy to do both?? Here, have a look at required deltaV. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of... how is this 'From a…

> Here, have a look at required deltaV. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of ... > how is this 'From an energy perspective its not that much more complex.'? According to that chart: Moon landing ∆V: 9.4+2.44+0.68+0.14+0.68+1.73 = 15.1 km/s Mars landing ∆V: 9.4+2.44+0.68+0.09+0.39+0.67+.034+0.40+0.70+3.8 = 18.6 km/s

And the Mars one actually overstates it because you can use backbreaking to reduce that further.

So in actual reality with Starships design they are quite close.

I guess ChatGPT is pretty good.

Post reply on HN