21–30 of 53 posts
It's like reading the little disclaimer on a crash test dummy commercial. "Do not try this at home." To say that this video was 'sped up' is basically telling your readers you think they're handicapped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day everything is just putting atoms in the correct positions so given enough energy anything is possible.
Having got the atoms into the right place, a surprisingly large amount of effort seems to then be involved in persuading the electrons to dance around in the right patterns. 'More energy' doesn't yet seem to help us solve that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes me wonder how much does the society suck, or what else could be achieved if more of the humanity's resources were managed the way they are at SpaceX. If Musk had decided to do fusion energy instead of rockets, would it be commercially viable by now? How about curing cancer?
Curing cancer? Which one? Let's not assume that nobody else knows what they are doing.
They know what they are doing all right. For instance, ITER's managerial staff surely enjoys the jet-setting between Barcelona and the French Riviera. But their goals are not aligned with making progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curing cancer? Which one? Let's not assume that nobody else knows what they are doing.
Does not matter which one, does it? Pick any. They know what they are doing all right. For instance, ITER's managerial staff surely enjoys the jet-setting between Barcelona and the French Riviera. But their goals are not aligned with making progress.
Durr. Was this even necessary to say? It's like reading the little disclaimer on a crash test dummy commercial. "Do not try this at home." To say that this video was 'sped up' is basically telling your readers you think they're handicapped.
Reciprocally, I have visited a few hackspaces and witnessed vignettes along the lines of someone saying 'I know Javascript, therefore I'm an engineer!' before they then cut their hand open in a completely predictable way with an angle grinder, having just rebuked you for trying to 'interfere' with their use of said angle grinder because you could see the wheel nut wasn't tightened down properly (this is a true story).
The moral is: don't assume other's backgrounds, and don't over-assume your own. We all come at this stuff from different directions and a pointer can help some of the audience, even if its redundant for others.
Is HN now the SpaceX PR RSS feed? Are we going to have to see this same article and talk about how amazing SpaceX is every time they do anything? I look forward to the breathless comments on "SpaceX successfully lands rocket for 38th time!"
I'm afraid you'll see an article about SpaceX being awesome every time SpaceX are being awesome. Which is and will continue to be often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They mentioned during the broadcast that there is actually a cleaning system to remove frost, etc. from the lens.
Sort of obvious given the lense gets covered during the clip, then almost instantly clearly up; this wouldn't happen unless something was removing stuff.
Is HN now the SpaceX PR RSS feed? Are we going to have to see this same article and talk about how amazing SpaceX is every time they do anything? I look forward to the breathless comments on "SpaceX successfully lands rocket for 38th time!"
The landing video from the rocket[0] really puts into perspective how much this truly is 'rocket science'. They placed a boat 600km away in the ocean, and the rocket moving at 3000+km/h from 80-ish km up landed on it using some grid fins to steer. I get how it works, how you can do it, but it's still kind of incredible that they actually have 3 times in a row. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc Edit: it…
I saw the video some hours ago and I have been wondering since: how did the camera survive the re-entry? And how did the lens stay so clean?
As for keeping it clean, apparently they added a system after they realized its tendency to fog/ice up. I'd love the details on it too. The technique of using a rolling bit of plastic might work but given the weight penalty you probably wouldn't get more than a couple of lens "changes" in the tank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of obvious given the lense gets covered during the clip, then almost instantly clearly up; this wouldn't happen unless something was removing stuff.
Neither of these comments answers the question of how did it survive re-entry, which we have all been taught to imagine as the rocket being immersed in a fireball at horrific temperatures.
Re-entry from orbit wouldn't just destroy the camera, it would burn up much of the craft as there is no heat shield.