Live data from Hacker News

Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

twitter.com

231–240 of 899 posts

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

#231
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s lots of things that are just too big and heavy and need launch vehicles like that. It might be overkill for satellites, but space stations and habitats need the payload capacity of something like this to become anything resembling economical.

how many of those things are there?

If you build it, they will come

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

#232
post #229
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why reentry must be so hellish? The energy gained during the rocket burn into orbit must be bled off during reentry, and that energy is enormous. However, why must reentry occur so quickly? It seems if the descent into the atmosphere was slower, the heat shield would be able to radiate the heat energy away more effectively, thus lowering skin temperatures, and significantly reducing the engineerin…

The velocity of a spacecraft in low earth orbit is over 15,000 miles per hour. Smashing into the atmosphere is perhaps the most fuel- and cost-efficient way to slow down to a speed at which landing is possible.

It doesn't really answer the question though. Why not descend slower so that the 15k MPH isn't meeting so much air? And bleed it off much slower so there is less heat

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

#234
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vision is that the cost per unit of mass to orbit will come down massively with Starship, once it's launching like the Falcon. That will open up hitherto unimaginable missions and markets. And customers. It's all about the the cost!

Like? What industry really needs things floating in space that are only constrained by cost to launch? I can see lots of science mission perhaps, but even that seems somewhat limited.

There have been tests of producing fiber optic cables (iirc) made in zeroG. There are other things as well that are way too cost prohibitive now, but might become viable opportunities with this type of capability.

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

#236
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Columbus very very much didn't plan to die (though he very much would have if he didn't get lucky that there was a whole new continent there). His plan was to land in India, which he thought he would reach around the time he actually reached the new continent, because he had a completely wrong idea of how large the globe actually was (he alone had this wrong idea; the actual circumference of the globe was pretty well…

Ok great, you’re definitely right, let’s not do it. What now? Will Elon stop? If Elon doesn’t stop, does that make you right?

I'm not saying it's impossible to send people to Mars and even bring them back. I'm saying there is no point whatsoever right now, at least no material or scientific purpose.

Of course, building a "city" on Mars is well beyond our capabilities, so that will either not be attempted at all, or it will fail. Maybe by 2124, but more likely 2524.

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

#237
post #68

What the hell, half melted starship actually did the landing flip and hit the ocean slow!!! That was amazing!

The fact that it managed the flip and landing burn means the fuel tanks (i.e. most of the fuselage) must have suffered no burn-through, despite what happened to the front flap. They've obviously got some redesign needed on the thermal protection around the flap hinges, but broadly, the thermal protection system and aerodynamic control during reentry seem to have worked well enough. It's finally starting to feel like…

One of the NSF commentators commented the fuel for the landing burn comes from the header tanks (little extra tanks for this kind of thing). Still, I would think if one of the closed up sections had a hole that it would cause all sorts of other troubles.

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

#238
post #32
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly wondering if that's a Stage 0 issue: those outer engines get primed by the launch ring AFAIK.

oh interesting, i did not know that. Just before ignition there was a bottom up view of what looked like gaseous o2 pouring out, was that the priming? They do that to get the pumps spinning to get pressure to the pre-burners so they can ignite and then get more power to turbo pumps to bring everything up to full power correct?

Could have been cool down, but also could have been the fire suppression system which uses (as I recall) both water and nitrogen to avoid combustible gas accumulation below the launch platform. That activates not too long before ignition, before the deluge.

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

#239

Watching pieces of the ship melt off, but then seeing it make a relatively controlled landing, is perversely confidence building. If it can survive that kind of damage on a control surface maybe it's a quite robust craft.

Exactly. Everyone was worried about reentry, but perhaps more concerning than the question of whether the headshield tiles work was the question how well the material below can handle failures. Now we know significant failures of tiles do not have to lead to mission loss.

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

#240
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die? Pretty much, why do you think columbus set off? And he didn't even know if he'd actually find anything. I don't understand your attitude and people like you, human beings have been explorers forever, and seem to value exploring even over survival potentially. I'd say it's pretty obviously evolutionarily coded into us. Maybe not you, but into many people.

> Pretty much, why do you think columbus set off? And he didn't even know if he'd actually find anything. hahahah Columbus set of because he wanted money, wealth for the crown. not because he was explorer. Columbus, Vasco Da Gama, Cortez et al were not dreamers but entrepreneurs. >> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die? Nobody (within reasonable definition of nobody) wants to go to Everest to die on top. Nob…

>> Who would go to Mars without a way back?

For a reasonable chance of being forever immortalized as one of the first humans to step foot on another planet?

Granted, I myself will never get the opportunity so it’s easy for me to say “oh hell yes I’d sign up in a heartbeat”.

Post reply on HN