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

Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 559 posts

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#541

Post by cratermoon »

merman wrote: post #513
cratermoon wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I previously said that if the launch works through staging, SpaceX fans would declare it a success. Personally, that seems like a pretty low bar compared to things like Saturn V and even STS, both of which launched successfully to orbit the first time.

cratermoon, you strike me as a rocket enthusiast. Take a look at a little-known rocket called "Falcon 9". Had more test failures than most rockets had launches. You can use that to help strengthen your argument that they really don't know what they're doing over there

Good point. They've been very successful with the Falcon 9. You'd think they have things like structural integrity, boost-back maneuvering, and how not to blow up figured out by now, but apparently SpaceX has different engineers working on Starship. At least the Raptor engine seems to work well. If it doesn't get concrete and rebar in it, and the fuel and oxidizer don't leak from the tanks. Aside from that, I consider the Raptor pretty darn impressive.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#542

Post by dotnet00 »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #535
dotnet00 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's pretend NASA is a carmaker company. 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 d…

I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#543

Post by wheelerof4te »

dotnet00 wrote: post #542
wheelerof4te wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's pretend NASA is a carmaker company. 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 d…

I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.

I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked.

Nearly every comment I leave about it gets a (rather poorly constructed) reply.

EDIT:

After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA!

Parroting how "conspiracy makes no sense" is dellusional at best: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#544

Post by wheelerof4te »

michaelmrose wrote: post #540
wheelerof4te wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Historical events are by definition not repeatable and facts don't need to be repeated. For instance we don't need to repeat WWII for it to have happened. It is sufficient to examine the historical record. The fact that you don't understand the difference between scientific fact and historical fact makes it hard communicate with you. You yourself mentioned an experiment that can be repeated, bouncing light off those…

"Is it anti western propaganda that you've swallowed uncritically?"

No, just common sense after looking at the pictures from NASA's archive. And also, looking at all the hard evidence presented by this guy convinced me that there is ZERO chance any human ever went to the Moon: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

As for the other "conspiracies", 9/11 being an inside job, and JFK being murdered for going after the FED and Isreali nuclear programme.

Any other questions?

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#545

Post by dotnet00 »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #543
dotnet00 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.

I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. Nearly every comment I leave about it gets a (rather poorly constructed) reply. EDIT: After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! Parroting how "consp…

Again, the "conspiracy makes no sense" argument is that the Soviet Union had the complete technological means to verify the landing (after all, they did not need to send people there to verify it). They had full incentive to show any convincing evidence that it was a lie. Yet, they never did. They never even wrote anything down, else we all know current Russia would be doing its best to publicize it.

There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program. Yet, once again, not one person has actual physical evidence of any conspiracy to fake the landing.

The fact that the country which literally had thousands of nukes pointed at the US (and vice versa), and has never shied away from propaganda, did not and has not credibly denied the Moon landing, is the standard you need to beat. Not piss poor analogies and comparisons like the ones you keep giving.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#546

Post by kbenson »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #537
cratermoon wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the span of ~50 years, we've gone from "sending men to the Moon" to "barely sending an empty rocket to the orbit". Isn't science great?

I'm confused by your stance here, because it's like you aren't aware that the Falcon 9 rocket by SpaceX has launched 80 times this year so far, and 60 times last year, and those are all commercial launches with payloads.

Thats hardly what I would barely sending an empty rocket to orbit. Just because some new version is being tested using different technologies and methodologies of building and isn't fully functional doesn't indicate that we can't or don't regularly exceed what you say we're barely accomplishing as a people.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#547

Post by kbenson »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #543
dotnet00 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.

I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. Nearly every comment I leave about it gets a (rather poorly constructed) reply. EDIT: After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! Parroting how "consp…

> I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked.

> After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA!

News at 11, person takes society's consistent interpretation of their crackpot conspiracy theories as ridiculius as further evidence of a conspiracy.

> Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't.

Sure I can. It's not too expensive as in "can't", it's too expensive as in "won't" because most the public doesn't care about it and it's not deemed a national security issues (which the space race was) which would cause the govt to push it anyways and also try to convince people with a concerted effort that it matters.

To me it feels like you don't understand how the social dynamics of representative governance works, but it's really fairly sinoke. Things people want are easy to fund or do, and things they don't are hard, but the government has various levers it can press to change that to larger or smaller degrees over time.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#548

Post by lisper »

philistine wrote: post #536
lisper wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The process is orderly. They tested and designed the explosion very specifically.

That's not what I meant. Disassembly generally implies a resulting state that makes reassembly possible. This was not that.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#549

Post by twirlip »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #535
dotnet00 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's pretend NASA is a carmaker company. 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 d…

Your analogy with carmaker companies doesn't communicate the illogic you believe it does as there are several instances where car companies produced inferior followups to successful models. Furthermore, the self-same manufacturers largely did improve their vehicles to high levels of reliability and performance.

Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time

#550

Post by wheelerof4te »

kbenson wrote: post #546
wheelerof4te wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the span of ~50 years, we've gone from "sending men to the Moon" to "barely sending an empty rocket to the orbit". Isn't science great?

I'm confused by your stance here, because it's like you aren't aware that the Falcon 9 rocket by SpaceX has launched 80 times this year so far, and 60 times last year, and those are all commercial launches with payloads. Thats hardly what I would barely sending an empty rocket to orbit. Just because some new version is being tested using different technologies and methodologies of building and isn't fully functional…

Yeah, I guess you're right. This is a thread about SpaceX, and I'm just hijacking it for my selfish reasons.

SpaceX is cool, I really hope they get to the Moon one day.

Post reply on HN