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

761–770 of 899 posts

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

#761

Post by rbanffy »

bearjaws wrote: post #3

The rate of descent is absolutely astonishing, 8km -> 1km in 20 seconds, then just hovers above the water. Absolutely incredible work by the SpaceX team. Living in central Florida I cannot wait for the new launch facility to come online. We're going to have lines of spectators into the space coast like we did for the shuttle. If any of you are heading to Disney World you should stop by the NASA Kennedy Visitor Comple…

> If any of you are heading to Disney World you should stop by the NASA Kennedy Visitor Complex

To hell with Disney. KSC is a lot more interesting. And much cheaper.

And, with SpaceX's increased launch cadence, the odds of watching a rocket launch for free increase dramatically from the shuttle era.

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

#762

Post by rbanffy »

andromaton wrote: post #476
causi wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man I hope Musk names one of the Starships Enterprise.

Bet he will

He doesn't give many Star Trek vibes though. Space Socialism isn't really his thing.

What he could do (and Blue Danube yesterday gave me the idea) is to buy the PanAm brand and do a rebrand of the crew services at least to the ISS.

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

#763

Post by me_me_me »

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.

I recommend to get hands on Hardcore History episodes about the rise and fall of Japan in ww2.

You will get an nuanced perspective on the whole conflict from a lot of angles and all discussions that lead to firebombing/nukes etc.

Those thing didn't happened out of the blue.

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

#764

Post by rbanffy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #725
raverbashing wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah it was reliable but with a lot of artifacts I honestly couldn't make out much of what was being shown at those last moments. And I'm curious why SpaceX didn't have a ship there at the expected landing site to assess the landing (maybe they thought it wouldn't make it)? It was a great event, surely, but it would have been nice to have a 3rd person view of the landing (you have the diagram at the bottom but…

They don’t have a ship there so burning rocket debris doesn’t kill people. Once they’re confident they can land it in a specific place in one piece, expect them to drop it with cameras present. The issue at the end wasn’t as much artifacts as it was the camera housing getting blasted during the descent. It visibly cracked as the fin caught fire.

I hope someone recovers that fin. It kept working despite all the damage it took.

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

#766

Post by me_me_me »

philwelch wrote: post #658
incompatible wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 became a world war when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Of course, they could have stood back and let the Nazi's carry out their plan of annexing Eastern Europe, but they drew the line at Poland.

No, that’s when WW2 became a pan-European war. It became a world war when Japan attacked the British and Americans, thus combining the Anglo-German and Sino-Japanese wars into a single conflict.

Calling it a single conflict is bit of hair splitting, japan had almost nothing to do with germany, especially after war started. Those were 2 separate conflicts happening at the same time.

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

#767

Post by jvm___ »

krisoft wrote: post #715
tim333 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pondering but given the guys in the picture are on cherry picker type cranes, I'm guessing the photographer was on another of those. The quality looks a bit high for a drone.

> The quality looks a bit high for a drone. There are drones which carry full DSLR cameras or even cinematography film cameras. I don't think you will be able to tell if the camera was hoisted by a crane or a drone based on image quality. > given the guys in the picture are on cherry picker type cranes, I'm guessing the photographer was on another of those I don't think so! That picture appears to be the fitment chec…

It was the first time the booster (bottom) and starship (top) had been mated together.

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

#768

Post by brookst »

Aeolun wrote: post #718
tim333 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got the black and white arty photo as my lockscreen which gives you an idea https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/E46BxzjjUkpthVBNE6k8mn-192...

You could not pay me enough to stand there…

I would pay anything to stand there.

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

#769

Post by brookst »

rbanffy wrote: post #762
andromaton wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bet he will

He doesn't give many Star Trek vibes though. Space Socialism isn't really his thing. What he could do (and Blue Danube yesterday gave me the idea) is to buy the PanAm brand and do a rebrand of the crew services at least to the ISS.

I could definitely see Musk getting into Make Pan American Great Again.

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

#770

Post by vlozko »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #562
stctw wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> where one side intends to conquer a continent or the world I believe this view indicates you may have drunk a bit too much of the kool aid. Germany had zero ability to hold all of Europe longer term, let alone the entire world. This is a comic book tier view. Any end to the war would have had concessions and land transfers but there is no precedent to suggest that even France would have remained under Germany longe…

> It’s eerily parallel to the situation with Ukraine today, in fact.

I'm sorry, but this is not a realistic view of what transpired. Russia was and continues to be an opportunistic colonialist. They keep moving territory markers overnight in Georgia. Crimea/Donbass didn't happen because of some breakdown in some peace treaty. The last minute deal offered and wasn't accepted right before the 2022 invasion that some blame Ukraine on was awful in every possible way. It would have neutered Ukraine militarily and required a puppet government subservient to Russia be installed.

Post reply on HN