531–540 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is at least one documented survival at the insane speed of Mach 3: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/bailing-out-at-mach-3-the-in...
Here's Weaver's own account: http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-fr... I love the serendipitous detail of what happened on his next flight, though I'm sure it was not so amusing when it happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my point, you talk about new eras, but nothing changes. Who is this new for? You, me, or the billionaires who make lives like mine horrible? It’s all spectacle, and where will it all lead? We landed men on the moon, and haven’t been back. What is SpaceX going to use for going to Mars? Are you gonna be the one that’s going or are they gonna leave you behind to rot here on this burning planet?
Mars is a horrible place to live so I'll take Earth any day. But it would be nice if humanity doesn't get wiped out if we get unlucky with an asteroid.
So the most likely outcome of a metaphorical or literal asteroid hit on Earth is that it would still leave thousands, millions, or billions of survivors on Earth, while leaving it unable and/or unwilling to sustain maintenance missions to Mars, so the Mars colonists would starve or otherwise die slowly, despite being technically unaffected by the original disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my point, you talk about new eras, but nothing changes. Who is this new for? You, me, or the billionaires who make lives like mine horrible? It’s all spectacle, and where will it all lead? We landed men on the moon, and haven’t been back. What is SpaceX going to use for going to Mars? Are you gonna be the one that’s going or are they gonna leave you behind to rot here on this burning planet?
The kind of scientific advancements needed to sustain on the moon or mars will tremendously improve our abilities to be sustainable here on Earth. You are willfully ignorant or naive.
But there's still more than a month to go until 2024. I'm sure everything will come together in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno, it looks like a nominal shutdown to me. The speed readout shows rapidly decreasing acceleration just as the engine displays go out instead of the telemetry suddenly going stale as you'd expect if it just blew up during the burn. Then , after the acceleration has gone to zero, the telemetry goes stale, so my guess would be on something going wrong during shutdown (ullage collapse when the propellant sloshes f…
Starship engines were cut off at 8:03, while the nominal mission profile in Wikimedia mentions SECO at 8:33. The speed at cutoff was ~24000 km/h at an altitude of ~150 km. Without the AFTS, the Starship would have crashed somewhere in the Atlantic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you count as success depends on what your goal is Yes. My point is that the bar seems pretty low for Starship, and it's not clear why. Yes, some of the ways they are doing things are new, but overall, building large multi-stage rockets is 50s tech.
The "50s tech" was not based around easily reusable systems. It was all based on explosive bolts, solid fueled ullage motors etc. On top of that the fuel was much easier to work with and did not involve needing to be able to handle pressurization and sloshing during flips. It's 50's tech only in the same way that a Ryzen CPU is 70's tech.
It successfully builds Golf 2, one of the most versatile cars ever made. That car can do everything and go anywhere.
Now, say that NASA wanted to upgrade that car after 50+ years. And now, that car can't even go 50 miles before requiring a refill.
Are we supposed to believe how the new car is better? Are we even supposed to believe that Golf 2 worked as well as NASA said it did?
Hell no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a humoristic (sarcastic) style form, or just a very neutral, matter of fact, professional assessment? I can't tell, in part, I guess, due to esl.
It's not clear either way. But as a neutral, matter-of-fact, professional assessment it sounds really weird because "disassembly" generally implies an orderly process, and this was not that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of objectives, the stated primary objective was to get through staging without blowing up. That was a success. The secondary objective was getting to reentry for the Ship - testing the heat shield, which was a failure.
> the stated primary objective was to get through staging without blowing up. So I was more or less correct at the top of the thread when I said, "if the launch works through staging, SpaceX fans would declare it a success", and I consider that a low bar.
Isn't science great?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean this was a launch failure or a test failure? It was obviously a launch failure, but even the most optimistic wouldn't have expected anything else. As for whether the test was a failure: since it successfully did a bunch of things that didn't work the last time, why would you say it's a failure? A failure would have been scattering the pad all over again, and not getting to stage sep. Or worse.
You have to define upfront what you want to get from a test. After that you go back and see if what you got is what you expected. Optimistic/Pessimistic does not really matter. By this criteria, I would say failure/partial failure or partial sucess. There is no way this was a success. Also, everyone can call this what they want. The thing that grinds my gears is not respecting that other people do have a different op…
Not only it is not success, it is a massive failure when compared to the magic technology from the 60's.
Space industry is the only industry that is moving backwards, it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.
I'm not totally sure Space X cares what the rest of the industry thinks. This is next-level space engineering compared to what's come before. Who's opinions are we concerned about? ULA? Arianespace? Those companies can't even blow up a space craft successfully because they can't launch them (see, SLS, Ariane 6).
What an odd thing to say. Are you suggesting that Starship is next-level when compared to Saturn V?
Hehe. I guess people nowadays lack any sort of historical perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say I make up a conspiracy theory that wheelerof4te is secretly the alt account of Putin. This theory explodes into the public consciousness. Pretty soon the US and European press is talking about it. Putin goes on the record "Hacker news what?" Server logs show that the user is connecting from a ISP in the UK. Someone bribes your ISP for your physical address. The international press descends. You give a press confe…
You are speaking from a position where the Moon landing is a proven, undisputed fact verified by everyone. In order for it to be that, it needs to be done again . Speaking plainly, it needs to be repeated in a reasonable enough timeframe, just like every other experiment done in history, in order for it to become a scientific fact. Instead of admitting that logical conclusion, you are pulling a strawman on me. Our di…
You yourself mentioned an experiment that can be repeated, bouncing light off those reflectors, its been done we went to the moon. A better question than "Did we go to the moon?" would be why do you want to believe we didn't?
Is it anti western propaganda that you've swallowed uncritically?
What other conspiracy theories do you believe?