31–40 of 53 posts
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.
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.
Beyond that, the glass in front of that camera's probably formulated to take extreme heat.
And of course, as jdblair points out, it's starting at a slower speed to begin with; faster than just about any aircraft (except maybe the X-15), but well short of orbital velocity.
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…
It is incredible, but makes to wonder how many things are possible that we don't do.
I also keep thinking about the book childhood's end, where aliens land and basically force us to run our things properly, cleaning up the planet's problems in a matter of a few years. I always wonder if we got put to the challenge as a species, whether we could meet it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredible, but makes to wonder how many things are possible that we don't do.
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?
That said we do have good treatments for the vast majority of forms of cancer, the problem is that your survivability is directly tied to how early it's detected, surgical removal, radiation and more notably modern chemo regiments are very effective in early stages of detection.
Many type of cancer today have 90%+ survivability rates if they are detected early enough, detection isn't always easy allot of them can not turn symptomatic till later stages, and many of them won't show up in blood work / body scans clearly either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredible, but makes to wonder how many things are possible that we don't do.
Whenever I read a news article where politicians congratulate themselves on almost balancing the budget after raising taxes a bit, I'm struck by just how low the bar is placed, even for important things. I also keep thinking about the book childhood's end, where aliens land and basically force us to run our things properly, cleaning up the planet's problems in a matter of a few years. I always wonder if we got put to…
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?
Some ballpark math: The 1st stage was travelling at 8,300 kph at MECO, and almost of that velocity would have been horizontal. There was no boost-back burn, so it would have kept that velocity until re-entry. Furthermore, it would be re-entering with some vertical velocity. They mentioned that apogee -- when the vertical velocity is zero -- was two minutes prior to the start of the re-entry burn. 2 minutes of freefall would add another 4,200 kph of vertical velocity. So that's 12,500 kph, which is less than 1/2 of a typical orbital re-entry of 26,000 kph. Because the energy grows with the velocity squared, it's more like a quarter of the heat of a typical orbital re-entry.
Finally, as I understand it, much of the point of the re-entry burn is to deflect the re-entry shockwave, effectively creating a shield of "cooler" rocket exhaust around the vehicle.
Still not anything you'd want to take a leisurely stroll in, but nowhere near as stressful as a proper orbital re-entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I read a news article where politicians congratulate themselves on almost balancing the budget after raising taxes a bit, I'm struck by just how low the bar is placed, even for important things. I also keep thinking about the book childhood's end, where aliens land and basically force us to run our things properly, cleaning up the planet's problems in a matter of a few years. I always wonder if we got put to…
Think about the bare minimum it would take a software developer not to get fired. It's actually quite low. Now realize how many people do the bare minimum at their job. Including politicians (bare minimum == get elected).
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!"
Please somebody justify SpaceX because "Science!" isnt cutting it for me anymore.