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

The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 378 posts

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#331

Post by GMoromisato »

kelnos wrote: post #241
GMoromisato wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, it's this ritual self-flagellation that helped elect Trump. Normies lost faith in the media partly because they were seen as not really loving America. And if you don't trust the media, then it's a lot easier to believe Trump's lies.

I feel like it's the other way around: Trump got elected because he was extremely critical of the US, and spun that as "America sucks right now because the liberals have ruined it". And beyond that, he just said the right words to people who were not doing so well in the economy. Lies, of course, but very seductive lies, and for a while I even felt bad for some Trump voters for getting sucked into those lies. And the…

Agreed!

Both sides said that "America sucks right now". I think Trump said "Let's go back to when America was great" whereas liberals said, "America was never great, so we need to keep changing."

Worse, it was easy for some liberals to slide from "America was never great" to "and it's the fault of [white people|cis people|males]"

I'm not endorsing any of those views--I just think that's how some people perceived it.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#332

Post by rlt »

microgpt wrote: post #252
GMoromisato wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different argument. You agree that space data centers are physically possible, but you just don't think they will be economical (i.e., cheaper than terrestrial data centers). Is that right? I don't know if they will be economical. But that will depend on a whole bunch of questions that nobody knows the answer to: How will the demand for AI grow? How much will opposition to terrestrial data centers increase t…

They won't be economical for many reasons - one of them is cooling. Putting several kilowatts of radiators on a Starlink satellite is a justified cost because the Starlink satellite must be in space. Putting a hundred megawatts of radiators on your AI DC in space is ridiculous because that's too big of a radiator (how do you keep it structurally sound?), air cooling on the ground is a million times better and there's…

> won’t be

Again, “What I find silly is the certainty that critics have that SpaceX will fail”.

I doubt you’ve done enough investigation to conclude that. Watching a couple a YouTube videos about how data centers in space are dumb doesn’t count.

For one, it’s not one big hundred megawatt-scale datacenter, but many smaller rack-sized satellites.

Two, there are many trade offs SpaceX can make to reduce the overall cost. The radiated power is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature, so anything they can do to increase the temperature drastically reduces the size of the radiators, including custom silicon, heat pumps, etc. There’s also novel radiator technology like liquid droplet radiators that could be worth developing.

Third, there are reasons to put it in space: solar panel efficiency, no cost for land, less regulation, no NIMBYs, etc.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#333

Post by rbanffy »

alistairSH wrote: post #99
rbanffy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dislike for widebody airliners is that the odds of getting a window seat are much smaller. What’s even the point of flying if you can’t look at the world from up high?

Reserve your seat then. Doesn’t cost that much on most airlines.

I always do, but, just this Saturday, due to some air-traffic meltdown (perfectly understandable considering the heat wave), we had our aircraft swapped for a slightly smaller one, and I had to renegotiate seats to be together with my kid.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#334

Post by rlt »

imtringued wrote: post #282
WalterBright wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the first transcontinental railroad was proposed and being built, it was beset with controversy and skepticism. But when it opened, it exceeded the wildest expectations of its most optimistic boosters. It transformed the country overnight. A similar thing happened with the first transatlantic cable.

Ok, but the problem with this comparison is that SpaceX is trying to avoid building any infrastructure at all. They are obsessed with the launch vehicle and basically have zero plans doing anything on Mars or the Moon once they get there. If you look at the competitors like say Blue Origin, you see that they have an entire lunar architecture mapped out that wouldn't be feasible without the infrastructure they're plan…

Wow so much to unpack here.

If SpaceX spent a ton of resources developing Moon and Mars base plane they’d be criticized for not focusing on the launch vehicle. The railroad company also doesn’t necessarily need to be the ones building the towns.

Starship has experienced setbacks but isn’t a “massive failure” by any measure.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#335

Post by WalterBright »

timw4mail wrote: post #322
JKCalhoun wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the 747 has the highest safety record of any commercial plane. Is that not true?

Hard to beat other planes that have not had fatal crashes or hull losses, especially when you consider the Tenerife crash.

The Tenerife crash was due to pilot error, not any problem with the 747.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#336

Post by WalterBright »

scrumper wrote: post #299
WalterBright wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twin engines are actually safer than four.

Is this because of something analogous to an expected value calculation? Like the increased probability of failure of a single engine when carrying 4, combined with the lower excess power per engine, means that the safety margin of a 4 engine plane is worse? Or is it something to do with the doubling of the number of critical parts that could fail? I'm struggling to come up with a workable argument why 2 is safer, it…

There's an enormous amount of energy in a jet engine with that spinning turbine. Then there's all the heat, fuel, and fire in it. When that energy lets go, you don't want to be anywhere near it.

It's amazing that jet engines work at all! Yet the safety record of the engines is incredibly good.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#337

Post by WalterBright »

angled wrote: post #312
WalterBright wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My time working on Flight Controls at Boeing.

Not sure if you ever make it over to HKG but there are quite a few cargo 747s that still seem to be making the rounds. CX and others have them on the GA / cargo side, and when on Lantau you often see (and hear!) them on final or takeoff. I think CX would hate to retire them because from what I understand their load capacity is unparalleled. And you can load horses in them! There'll always be money from that for HAECO…

My dad took me to Frankfurt AM to watch the first 747 to land there. Wow!

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#338

Post by timw4mail »

WalterBright wrote: post #335
timw4mail wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to beat other planes that have not had fatal crashes or hull losses, especially when you consider the Tenerife crash.

The Tenerife crash was due to pilot error, not any problem with the 747.

While true, aircraft fatality statistics generally are not split that way.

The 747 is a safe aircraft, but there have been a lot of fatalities associated with it, due to pilot error, terrorism, improper repair/maintenance, etc.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#339

Post by wolvoleo »

perilunar wrote: post #276
wolvoleo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it's really because they have broken that promise. Governments take advantage of that cohesion. It's not really because of the transactionality to my benefit but just because what they stand for is a net negative for society and the world. Consider the military. Few wars are actually worth giving one's life for. Since 1945 basically none. If the Communists had won in Vietnam nothing would have happened to Ameri…

> If the Communists had won in Vietnam nothing would have happened to America They did.

True they did in the end but my point is, nothing bad happened.

Like, why did America even get involved in that shit anyway? It was a French problem (and really, it was fair they wanted to kick the French colonisers out).

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#340

Post by wolvoleo »

rootusrootus wrote: post #323
wolvoleo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it's really because they have broken that promise. Governments take advantage of that cohesion. It's not really because of the transactionality to my benefit but just because what they stand for is a net negative for society and the world. Consider the military. Few wars are actually worth giving one's life for. Since 1945 basically none. If the Communists had won in Vietnam nothing would have happened to Ameri…

I share your disillusionment, but my preferred response would be Americans coming together and deciding that actually, we do care, and we do want a better society for everyone, a better government, less corruption, etc. I am not suggesting that everyone needs to subscribe to my idea of better, either, I am just saying that we could improve things just be getting a majority of people acting in good faith and having re…

Oh yeah I'm not an idealist. Or a team player (that much was clear I think). I'm more a 'fuck society' type like in Mr. Robot :)

I like to work with others to make things better but they have to be aligned in values. I don't do unconditional loyalty stuff.

Post reply on HN