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

Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 899 posts

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

#401

Post by mlindner »

xnx wrote: post #243
mlindner wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone said it cracked, but it didn't look like cracking to me. It looked like carbon vapor deposition/metal vapor deposition.

That's how it started, but there was a specific moment where it suddenly cracked. Further deposition and debris may have obscured that crack later.

Yeah on re-watch I saw the moment it cracked, but it didn't really damage the view much as the crack was relatively small. It was only the cover rather than the lens itself. Probably from the flash cooling after how hot it got.

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

#403

Post by avhon1 »

CarVac wrote: post #335
notact wrote: 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…

To get a gentler reentry, you need a greater lift-to-drag ratio. To have a better hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio you need significantly more wing area, which is dead weight (and drag and a control problem) on the way up.

Exactly! Re-entry is the transition from orbital dynamics to aerodynamics. If you want the transition from orbit to flight to occur at a lower speed, then you need to be able to produce lift equal to your weight at that speed, at the altitude where you will hit that speed.

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

#404

Post by dotnet00 »

krapp wrote: post #147
madaxe_again wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 10k+ people would all be doing something different if it weren’t for that one guy - so ultimately, yes.

How do you know? It's entirely feasible someone other than Elon Musk could have founded a similar company with similar goals, the same or equivalent competent staff, and had the same success. There is no unique magic sauce that Elon brings to the table here, other than money.

This argument is not convincing, considering that there were other private space companies, some with far more funding and far more support from NASA at their inception (eg Kistler Aerospace) which never got anywhere. That's why the joke when Musk expressed his desire to get into aerospace was "how do you become a millionaire in aerospace? Start as a billionaire".

Musk had, at the very least, the ability to pick good talent, enough commitment to try for one last launch even after burning through most of his fortune with no results and the ability to establish good culture for an R&D focused company. This is relatively well documented in books about the early days of SpaceX.

Theoretically someone else could have made the exact same decisions as him, but by that same logic Einstein should not be praised for his contributions to science because someone else could've theoretically had the same realizations.

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

#406

Post by stctw »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #391
ElevenLathe wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V2 was of questionable legitimate military utility too. Sure you can hit a target the size of a city, but unlike carpet bombing, the payload isn't enough to guarantee that something specific is destroyed. So you can only use it to randomly harm civilians and maybe every once in a while hit a military target. Compare this with the Western Allies' approach where they also killed and maimed tons of civilians but at leas…

Firebombing whole cities in Europe and Japan is still a black mark in US history. It’s really hard for me to get “holier than thou” on other terror campaigns when I remember that.

It's easy to say that now. Have you lived through unrestricted, total warfare, where one side intends to conquer a continent or the world, invades without provocation, and won't stop until brought to submission through extreme force? The Allies did not initiate war and did not want war. How many of your country's people should you sacrifice to end a war of aggression started by the enemy? Should you not use the means that will preserve as many of your lives as you can?

This century has yet to see anything like WW1 and WW2, and those who are alive today are incredibly disconnected from our recent past.

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

#408

Post by colechristensen »

moskie wrote: post #400

[flagged]

I don't think this in particular is a personality cult, but it is pretty obvious people are kept around and probably encouraged to cheer and shit like it's a sporting event. It's a bit awkward and wouldn't surprise me that the awkward suggestion came from the top.

I get occasionally getting excited but this feels forced and doesn't it happen on every launch?

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

#410

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

hindsightbias wrote: post #368
somenameforme wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the odds are that some deep sea salvage group is moving to collect that this very instant (or being contracted for such). If Starship lives up to even a fraction of its potential, that [not so] little guy is going to have some serious historicity.

What makes you think it sank? If the hull is intact it might be floating. Given the flap damage, it's probably leaking though.

It looked like the booster exploded when it submerged after soft splashdown. There was some fire and the stream cut off. Maybe that's what happened to the ship too.
Post reply on HN