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

SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#331

Post by sephamorr »

ecpottinger wrote: post #304
justatestttt wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pulled over on the side of the street to watch this with my kiddo on my phone. It was a historic moment that I didn't want to miss. I really wish that we didn't have to make EVERY experience ultra casual these days though...it was disorienting to keep hearing the astronauts referred to as "Bob and Doug". These are veteran Air Force and Marine pilots. They deserve their honorifics being honored if anyone does.

I have you know Bob and Doug are important people up here in Canada, they showed us how to get a case of beer for free.

NASA hosted a (remote) movie night as a sendoff for Bob and Doug last week; the movie selected by the pair, of course, was Strange Brew.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#332

Post by quijoteuniv »

Awesome! Private rockets and now millonaries can go to space! It is indeed very interesting how the russians milked the same cow so many times, the propaganda maschine drove the nationalist spirit high, by launching the same rocket over and over, first it was a dog, then the first man in orbit, then first spacewalk, then the first woman in space. It was literally the same launch over and over but it made people happy. :)

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#333

Post by TheDong »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #279
gfodor wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often you need to build the new thing before the business model emerges, because you can’t visualize or evaluate the latter until the former exists.

I think it's the general problem of infrastructure-like endeavors. "If you build it, they will come" absolutely applies to infrastructure.

"If you build it, they will come" suffers from confirmation bias.

You can easily look back at things people have built and people have come to (computers, planes, cars, etc)... But there are far more things people built that no one came for, and which we don't even know of because no one wanted them.

Solar roadways is an example of something that was an infrastructure project that was built out in a few places, and by all accounts was a failure.

The concorde seemed like an obvious "build it, people will want it", but in reality people didn't come for it, so it was retired.

And there's countless other examples, from 3d movie theatres, to dotcom ideas to all the things we don't know of.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#334

Post by fogetti »

modeless wrote: post #329

Perhaps of interest to HN, the cockpit displays seen in the videos are HTML pages rendered in Chromium. https://twitter.com/alteredq/status/1266853705632145409?s=19 SpaceX recently released a browser game where you use the real flight UI to dock with the ISS: https://iss-sim.spacex.com/

Awesome. Thanks for sharing

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#335

Post by foota »

stickfigure wrote: post #288
babesh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need to look further. You get access to rare materials that can be immensely valuable. Read https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Revolution-Spaceflight-Pos... Also with that short term outlook you wouldn’t have many things. The Internet was not initially commercial. It was designed to provide communications in the event of a nuclear attack. Yet here we are now and we have reaped immense benefits from that inves…

> You get access to rare materials that can be immensely valuable. Why would you want to send humans to get it? Space is really inhospitable for humans, but machines seem to like it just fine. Offshore oil and gas mining is rapidly being automated, and if they could, they would eliminate humans from the process altogether. Nobody wants to go out and live on a frozen windblown metal can full of industrial machinery, i…

I think you've answered your own question, which is an easier place to operate? A (admittedly salty) static platform a couple hours helicopter ride away, or a radioactive vacuum that requires years of planning to reach and which by the way is minutes away even by radio?

The fact we've yet to automate so much here with such large incentive to do so is evidence we're not there yet.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#336

Post by piyh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #160
ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

It is hard to convey how "sustainable" this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. All of the NASA missions prior to this have an ambience of "uneconomical but useful". Even the shuttle, which was supposed to be this cost effective space truck, turned out to be not even close. And the last thing I'm feeling is the a…

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

Space as a destination in itself seems fine to me.

On the other side of it, what's the point in making a space hotel if you have to pay the Russians an exorbitant amount of money to get 3 people into orbit? Now we can put 7 people up for less money more frequently.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#337

Post by dmix »

lmilcin wrote: post #195
thoraway1010 wrote: post #154

Quick note: Boeing got the big bucks at $5B or so for their crewed services because they have the "better" more reliable design. SpaceX only got $3B or so. Boeing running roughly 60%+ more per seat as well. So a real accomplishment so far for SpaceX to pull this off.

If I heard correctly, SpaceX got less because they were already running regular resupply missions to ISS and not because they had "worse, less reliable design".

Must adjust for the grift. Boeing are professionals at this process.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#338

Post by [deleted] »

colordrops wrote: post #229
tsimionescu wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Crew Dragon is only making money from the government, how would it still be there tomorrow if the government weren't paying? Do you really imagine that there will be a market for this as it stands today? How much training and medical evaluation have the astronauts gone through to ensure they could survive the trip and know how to operate?

They've already got several private customers who have booked missions.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#339

Post by piyh »

joubert wrote: post #256
colordrops wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already got several private customers who have booked missions.

Do you have more information? (Who, what for)

Tom Cruise and presumably at least one camera person for a movie on the ISS

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#340

Post by Tuna-Fish »

sephamorr wrote: post #14
avmich wrote: post #9

The big and annoying issue with the Crew Dragon design seems to be the chosen RCS fuel (AFAIK, monomethylhydrazine and N2O4), which makes both fueling and clearing after landing a delicate process. Hopefully Crew Dragon proves itself as a capable platform for Earth-orbit transportation, but this fuel issue is a hard one to counter.

RCS engines are practically always hypergolic since you need to be able to pulse on and off very easily/quickly, and propellents need to be storable (non-cryo). If you look at the choices remaining, they're all various levels of extremely toxic.

Note that SpaceX has stated it's working on gaseous methane, gaseous oxygen RCS thruster for it's next rocket, Starship/Superheavy.
Post reply on HN