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

Starship Flight 7

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 772 posts

Re: Starship Flight 7

#751

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

tsimionescu wrote: post #675
TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so, what your saying is that you admit SpaceX is a world class provider of launch services, but you don't like it cause it's not THAT much better than everything else?

I'm saying that SpaceX is a world-class provider of space launch services, and leads the market on virtually any metric, but they aren't, as some are claiming in this thread, orders(!) of magnitude cheaper than others in the business. I'm just trying to counter balance some of the narrative here that presents SpaceX like some savior almost sent from the future.

Although starship is not "proven", you can say that the architecture is one that atleast theoretically works. And they have the data, and it is an order of magnitude cheaper as my previous comments have said.

This next year they have the hardware and permission for 25 launches. So within the end of this year your comment will no longer be valid.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#752

Post by BurningFrog »

mark-r wrote: post #748
BurningFrog wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern space ships are very likely to change that, as designs mature and improve. Early aviation was extremely dangerous. Now a plane is among the safest places to be.

Planes are safe because investigators were diligent about going to every crash and investigating to find the root cause. That's a lot more difficult when your evidence is dispersed to the stars or burns up on re-entry.

Modern space ships are full of sensors measuring everything interesting.

That data is streamed to Earth, so you usually have pretty good indication of what happened, even if your ship is now a puff of stratospheric smoke .

Re: Starship Flight 7

#753

Post by drillsteps5 »

SECProto wrote: post #683
drillsteps5 wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read Wikipedia too. All the calculations are done in m, s, g, etc. if you want to dumb it down to the public you might as well go in miles per hour, leagues per day, etc., spaceflight is not the place where it is appropriate.

> if you want to dumb it down to the public you might as well go in miles per hour, The blue origin launch this week used mph and feet of elevation, and I can definitively say that using modified SI is way way better than US customary

Well, at least they didn't do knots, that's progress I guess :)

Re: Starship Flight 7

#754

Post by drillsteps5 »

nomel wrote: post #699
drillsteps5 wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read Wikipedia too. All the calculations are done in m, s, g, etc. if you want to dumb it down to the public you might as well go in miles per hour, leagues per day, etc., spaceflight is not the place where it is appropriate.

> spaceflight is not the place where it is appropriate. But, a video stream meant for the public consumption is. SI are standardized for the context of calculations , not necessarily for human consumption, which happens to be why nobody gives the weather in degrees kelvin.

Their main target audience is still space geeks. Parts of broadcast will be shown in daily news bits on cnn and reuters, who will still translate the height to football fields, velocity to car speed, etc. Geeks will watch and re-watch it multiple times and fight over crazy theories online and it really helps if you can use normal units of measure.

Btw the rest of the world measure temperature in Celsius which is derived from Kelvin (by adding or subtracting the value of absolute zero in Celsius).

Re: Starship Flight 7

#755

Post by echoangle »

tsimionescu wrote: post #684
saberience wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space Shuttle isn't a "rocket" like Falcon 9 is though, it couldnt go to space by itself. So saying its the first reusable rocket is really stretching credibility. Falson 9 is a one piece rocket, as is Superheavy. The Space Shuttle got to space with the help of other rockets, tank etc.

And all those other parts were recovered after most flights and re-used after refurbishment on future flights. Since there's no other name than "Space Shuttle" for the whole rocket, it will do. Note that Starhsip is also ambiguous, as it refers both to the entire two stage rocket, but also just stage 2.

If you want to be precise, you can call the whole thing „Space Transportation System“. I think it was clear from context here though. The thing often called shuttle is the Orbiter.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#756

Post by keepamovin »

yreg wrote: post #746
keepamovin wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cutting edge engineering with conventional physics looks fake to you folks imagine what a hard time you’re going to have with real videos of actual UFOs.

I don't believe your ability of classifying videos as real or fake to be any greater than mine. Maybe you just have more confidence?

You’re not being attacked. The comment is in reply not just to your, but to all similar sentiments here. Your ‘ability to classify videos as real or fake’ (heh, funny AI tech phrase

-- but also why assume our ‘ability’ would be the same? We are different people, made different, with different prior data, we would feel differently about it, right? Why would you think not, heh? You’d be wrong if you assumed people react in the same way. Back to the point:) --

your ‘ability’ is also not somehow being judged.

You expressed a feeling in response to it. Okay, good. Now imagine how much harder a time you will have with real videos of UFOs when even cutting conventional engineering looks fake.

That’s the point. Are we clear?

Re: Starship Flight 7

#757

Post by antifa »

jiggawatts wrote: post #706
hooli_gan wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think these are mere delays, then I have a bridge to sell to you

In about two years, when these things will be launching hundreds of starlink satellites like clockwork, you’ll just move the goalposts and find something else to criticise. I’m saying this with confidence because it’s the established history of SpaceX critics. Everything from reusable rockets, space internet, full-flow staged combustion, etc.. has had its naysayers that all shut up and found something new to critique…

I don't like Elon.

I'm not going to look up the original context of Elon's alleged lies, but from what's written here they just sound like long term project goals rather than formal lies (implying things like malicious intent or fraud).

If anything, maybe the only reason he didn't meet those goals is due to his social media addiction.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#758

Post by me_me_me »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #751
tsimionescu wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that SpaceX is a world-class provider of space launch services, and leads the market on virtually any metric, but they aren't, as some are claiming in this thread, orders(!) of magnitude cheaper than others in the business. I'm just trying to counter balance some of the narrative here that presents SpaceX like some savior almost sent from the future.

Although starship is not "proven", you can say that the architecture is one that atleast theoretically works. And they have the data, and it is an order of magnitude cheaper as my previous comments have said. This next year they have the hardware and permission for 25 launches. So within the end of this year your comment will no longer be valid.

I heard the next year there will be 100 launches and they all will be self driving too.

And you will be able to buy one and rent it out for 100x return on investment.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#759

Post by me_me_me »

ricardobeat wrote: post #731
me_me_me wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people say is that knowledge in the field is extremely hard to transfer, and easily lost. So you are saying that Curiosity team had probably not learned anything from those 20 years old programs? You are literally strengthening my point...

No, that’s about “SpaceX learning from NASA’s past mistakes”. You also don’t seem to get the point that they were 2-year old programs when Curiosity started, so I’ll just leave it here.

Yeah leave it here. You are probably tired after moving the goalposts so many times.

Re: Starship Flight 7

#760

Post by __m »

m4rtink wrote: post #654
logifail wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so by the time it slows enough to get that low (10km) it's hundreds or thousands of miles East from where the explosion was seen Appreciate that, the question would be, do we know that there won't be any aircraft at the right (wrong) altitude in that area(?!) With aircraft regularly travelling thousands of miles, would be interesting to know whether route choices are made to avoid being "under"* the track of a rock…

There were quite large areas of airspace closed just for this reason via NOTAMS - with airlines grumbling about that even before launch.

No there weren’t https://youtu.be/O_CnuIJWLJU?si=i13whtwSkIZS1yxx
Post reply on HN