[HN Gopher] SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in the Gulf of Mexico
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in the Gulf of Mexico
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 366 points
Date : 2020-08-02 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Congratulations to all involved . Fuck you Rogozin
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Downvoters: Rogozin is a head of Roskosmos, and this event
| shows just how much he failed to develop Russian space program
| . Fuck this fat asshole . Apologies to everyone offended .
| neals wrote:
| Is this also how they're going to have people come back from
| Mars? Seems like a very inefficient method, with the parachutes
| and all...
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The Crew Dragon Capsule is not expected to be involved in any
| mars trips. They will use the very large Starship vehicle to
| travel to and from Mars and it will land with rockets.
|
| However I'm not sure what you mean by inefficient here.
| Parachutes work great on Earth for vehicles of a certain size.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No, Starship is designed to return to land using rockets.
| pixl97 wrote:
| In theory the Dragon could be too, but it was much faster and
| cheaper to have it splash down with parachutes instead.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Here is the livestream:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-l6f4wcv2I
|
| If it is live, go back to roughly 2:45 EST. If it is no longer
| live, it should be around 7h15m in the VOD.
|
| (I really wish you could link to a time on a livestream, or even
| better, create a "Clip" like with Twitch.)
|
| EDIT: Well it is streamed on Twitch so here's a clip:
| https://www.twitch.tv/nasa/clip/CourteousPatientVelociraptor...
|
| From which you can also click "watch full video" which puts you
| at the exact right time in the full VOD.
| avmich wrote:
| Vostok, Mercury, Voskhod, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle,
| Shenzhou - and now Crew Dragon. We still have progress, ladies
| and gentlemen.
| idlewords wrote:
| How is it progress if they all do the same thing?
| avmich wrote:
| The difference is roughly as between contemporary cars.
| Compare Chevy Impala of early 1960-s with today's Priuses.
|
| Of course this is just an analogy. We can study functional
| differences - while both Vostok and Crew Dragon can deliver a
| human to orbit and back, they differ a lot regarding how well
| they do that and what they can also do, in addition to the
| main functionality.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Fuck you and your shitty title, NY times. Congrats NASA & SpaceX
| and everyone else involved.
| SergeAx wrote:
| "NASA team, thanks for flying SpaceX"
|
| They forgot to add "For our frequent flyer program members, your
| mileage accounts will be updated in next 24 to 48 hours"
|
| Also: "Seats are spacious, entertainment system is top notch, big
| screens, good internet connection except during descent. After
| landing they didn't open the exit for half an hour. Good food.
| Overall 4/5, would recommend".
| donatj wrote:
| Does it go from Crew Dragon to Crewed Dragon when it's occupied,
| or is that a typo?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Does it go from Crew Dragon to Crewed Dragon when it 's
| occupied, or is that a typo?_
|
| Autocorrect typo. Fixed. Thank you.
| donatj wrote:
| I'm actually kind of sad, I would have liked that as a
| convention.
| fnord77 wrote:
| imagine being stuffed in those seats for 19 hours.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Far better than a Soyuz.
| Tepix wrote:
| In microgravity, mostly
| RedShift1 wrote:
| What if you have to pee or a number two?
| smiley1437 wrote:
| It's not the most glamorous fact, but astronauts have diapers
| 51Cards wrote:
| True, though Crew Dragon also has a "washroom". (likely
| acts more like a vacuum than anything though)
| 51Cards wrote:
| They weren't in those seats for 19 hours. Shortly after
| undocking they were able to take off their suits for the night.
| Didn't have to put them on again until the re-entry prep
| started. Most of that 19 hours they were free to move around
| the cabin.
| Animats wrote:
| Why bother with a helicopter? How far is the recovery boat from
| Pensacola?
| jccooper wrote:
| It allows them to go straight to the airfield, where a jet will
| be waiting to take them immediately to Houston. They have
| facilities as JSC specifically for evaluating and managing
| returning astronauts.
| robomartin wrote:
| Proud to have played a part in advancing access to space.
|
| You don't quite get the historical significance of what you are
| working on until you get to see it in context.
|
| I'll always look back at my work at SpaceX as one of the
| highlights of my journey through engineering. Among other things,
| it is because of this that we are now working on a project for
| NASA's Artemis mission and will likely deliver hardware to the
| moon starting next year and possibly every year until 2026 or
| thereabouts.
| Ziggy_Zaggy wrote:
| Hats off to you for putting in work at SpaceX and NASA to
| advance humanity. The work you do is more valuable then any of
| us can begin to comprehend until we're much older, wiser, and a
| multi-planetary species.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| Are those bozos who piloted their boats into the recovery area
| breaking any laws?
| herpderperator wrote:
| They're part of the SpaceX team, working to secure the landing
| and check for leaks since the main recovery ship won't arrive
| for another hour.
|
| Edit: Oh, there was another boat the parent comment was
| referring to.
| spike021 wrote:
| Nah, there was a shot of regular civilian vessels (some with
| Trump flags).
| [deleted]
| bottlelion wrote:
| There are a few private boats out there as well. One with a
| Trump 2020 flag just cruised through the camera shot.
| jcims wrote:
| There's a veritable crowd around the recovery boat now, lol.
| 3:13p EST
| mymacbook wrote:
| I don't know was weird to see a Trump flag and I realized they
| were not part of recovery effort. Sounds like SpaceX announced
| they landing coordinates and that's why they were able to get
| out there.
| [deleted]
| xwdv wrote:
| No, it's international water and they have every right to be
| there.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I could be totally wrong but I didn't think any part of the
| Gulf of Mexico was considered international waters? I thought
| the US (and maybe/hopefully Mexico) had approval over oil
| rigs and such in the Gulf.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Anything more than 12 miles out is "international waters",
| but there's a 200 mile "exclusive economic zone". Mexico
| and Cuba have theirs; between the three nearly all the Gulf
| is covered.
|
| That said, international waters isn't actually a lawless
| zone. These boats are undoubtedly registered in the US, and
| thus subject to US law.
| criddell wrote:
| Even if it is US territorial waters, why can't the private
| boats be there? I'm not saying they should be there, but
| legally is it different than if Musk flipped the CyberTruck
| on a public road and people walked around the crash site?
| pixl97 wrote:
| For the same reason you can't be with in a particular
| distance of the take off. It is a public safety concern.
| And in those cases we afford law enforcement the ability
| to remove you from the scene.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Presumably there are some sort of "rules of the road"
| that govern how and where vessels can maneuver? I can't
| just drop anchor at the mouth of Boston Harbor and
| prevent everyone else from accessing it. Or maybe I can?
| I have no idea.
| freehunter wrote:
| Rights vs responsibilities is a tricky subject these days.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Try getting close to a warship in international waters and
| you'll find that right has some... functional limits, though.
| iso947 wrote:
| Unless you're a lighthouse
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Those are unlikely to be in international waters. I do
| know the old joke you're referring to, though!
| tyingq wrote:
| Not just a warship. Regular boats are also fed up with
| piracy and have some pretty nasty countermeasures.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Devil's advocating: I did exactly this several times in my
| sailing career. Military vessels are regulated by the same
| international laws and rules as all other sea navigation
| subjects.
|
| Fellow sailor crossed the course of Turkish submarine while
| under sail (meaning he had a right of passage). It was in
| Turkey's waters (!) about 10 years ago. Instead of changing
| course they made an emergency dive exercise.
| pcl wrote:
| > Instead of changing course they made an emergency five
| exercise.
|
| It's gotta be fun to have three dimensions of freedom
| available when making course changes.
|
| But man, I'd freak out if I were on the sailboat watching
| that happen!
| SergeAx wrote:
| Me too! But he is a racer and was ready to do a quick
| tack just in case.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Pretty impressive. And by that I mean boring return to earth,
| which is impressive in that it is made to seem so "easy."
|
| On the plus side, my friend from Lockheed-Martin who bet me
| dinner at one's favorite restaurant that Boeing would be the
| first when the contract was announced, now owes me dinner, so
| there's that.
|
| I had hoped see Starship hop 150m today[1] however that seems to
| have been scrubbed.
|
| There is a really good lesson here for folks which is ignore the
| people saying you won't be able to do something and just execute.
| They can't argue with results.
|
| EDIT: updated the link to point to the live camera pointed at the
| Starship SN5. Not sure what happened there. [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QbM7Vsz3kg
| Animats wrote:
| _Pretty impressive. And by that I mean boring return to earth,
| which is impressive in that it is made to seem so "easy."_
|
| Yes. Can we cancel the NASA Space Launch System now?
| metiscus wrote:
| So in trying to answer your question I found this rather
| long-winded but nonetheless interesting and appropos link.
|
| https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Can we cancel the NASA Space Launch System now?
|
| IMO, NASA/Congress will hang on to SLS for as long as it is
| remotely defensible.
|
| The US will need 2 heavy lift, large diameter rockets before
| SLS gets the axe. Once Starship and New Glenn are flying
| it'll be significantly more difficult to justify the $2
| billion / year spent just on the SLS program (not counting
| the actual rockets, which are another $1 billion a pop).
| natch wrote:
| >On the plus side
|
| I didn't see where you had mentioned a negative side here. I
| can't think of one. And congrats on the dinner!
| holler wrote:
| > There is a really good lesson here for folks which is ignore
| the people saying you won't be able to do something and just
| execute.
|
| I like this. Agree with your sentiment and as an armchair space
| fan, very excited to see the splash down. Can't help but feel
| inspired.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > On the plus side, my friend from Lockheed-Martin who bet me
| dinner at one's favorite restaurant that Boeing would be the
| first when the contract was announced, now owes me dinner, so
| there's that.
|
| I read somewhere that Musk have managed to hire top of the
| cream engineers of America's aerospace contractors, and NASA
| for very small money, relatively speaking, after NASA got its
| original "new crewed mission" project cancelled.
|
| And the irony is, that he got money for first SpaceX launches
| from NASA, and got a lot of engineering made for him for free
| at NASA as well.
| getpost wrote:
| It seems to me SpaceX's secret sauce is continuous iteration
| on vehicles that actually fly. It's hard to see how Boeing or
| Blue Origin can develop expertise with any confidence their
| designs will work, except, apparently, by going very slowly.
| Of course, Boeing has somewhat of a track record, but Blue
| Origin was founded before SpaceX and still hasn't achieved
| orbit.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I don't think so.
|
| Musk has hired pretty much the same people who were making
| the same rockets for LM, Boeing, and NASA.
|
| Their experience surely contributed to their speed.
|
| To me, they give a feeling that they have some very
| experienced, and conservative type managing their
| engineering who does everything by the book.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > To me, they give a feeling that they have some very
| experienced, and conservative type managing their
| engineering who does everything by the book.
|
| I think this is pretty clearly not true.
|
| "The book" says that once you have an operational
| configuration you freeze it. I remember hearing that the
| shuttle program was having to scrounge for old CPUs from
| warehouses because someone of the processors it used were
| no longer manufactured, and they didn't want to make
| changes to the hardware.
|
| In contrast to this, SpaceX is famous for continuously
| modifying their rockets - so much so that one of the NASA
| requirements for certification was that they freeze the
| design of their F9.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I think there's some nuance here -- my take is that
| SpaceX has a very good balance of knowing when going
| slowly and carefully is critical (launching important
| customer vehicles, launching crewed missions), and when
| it's critical to move fast and iterate (eg, every other
| time).
|
| SpaceX has blown up a LOT of vehicles via mistakes, by
| iterating fast and learning from them. They use these as
| learning experiences, and if they can get a few
| satellites up in the interim, that's great (see: the
| starlink launches on re-used rockets). But when it comes
| to launching actual astronauts, they checked every one of
| NASA's million boxes.
|
| NASA and Boeing are unfortunately incapable of operating
| in fast-and-loose mode, even when it would be better to
| iterate and break a few rockets. The two-mode operation
| is why SpaceX dominates, and likely will continue to
| crush.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I believe they are differentiated by _not_ doing a lot of
| random iterations in comparison to the competition.
|
| Blue Origin for example managed to completely redo pretty
| much everything about their design few times over, while
| SpaceX had something resembling Falcon 1, and Falcon 9 on
| their drawing boards pretty much since the beginning.
|
| Too much pivots, too much iterations, and close to no
| straight advancements.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| This is not exactly a fair take. the "new crewed mission"
| project has never been actually canceled. It's been delayed,
| and not due to lack of funding but poor execution.
| Constellation was better funded than commercial cargo and
| commercial crew and Orion has still been under development
| basically the whole time (although it changed names). Artemis
| continues, too.
|
| People want to make out SpaceX as if SpaceX is ideologically
| opposed to NASA or government funding and thus are
| hypocrites, when that has never been true. People like
| working at SpaceX because SpaceX gets stuff done and is
| developing truly transformative technology beyond the
| expendable paradigm of Apollo. Technology that will expand
| the availability of space to _several_ orders of magnitude
| more people instead of just a handful of heroes. And NASA
| loves it.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > People want to make out SpaceX as if SpaceX is
| ideologically opposed to NASA or government funding and
| thus are hypocrites, when that has never been true
|
| I am not saying that
| justhw wrote:
| Hey Chuck, I followed your link and it's an RV review video :)
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Argh, and thanks! Not sure what happened there, updated the
| link to point to the LabPadre live shot of the Starship.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Maybe he meant this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9QhUoOwHN8
| leetrout wrote:
| May the Schwartz be with you.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| "People who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt those
| who are doing it"
|
| -- Bernard Shaw
| BooneJS wrote:
| Congrats to the NASA and SpaceX teams. Awesome public/private
| partnership!
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Elon as CEO delivering on so many things is pretty amazing. I
| always think once you are lucky, twice you are good.
| perl4ever wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
| CorruptVoices wrote:
| Military contractor Elon Musk was able to do what humans have
| been doing for decades. What an accomplishment of our tax
| dollars. Congratulations Americans, you are amazing.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _do what humans have been doing for decades_
|
| This is incorrect. SpaceX has pioneered on several fronts of
| aerospace engineering. The most obvious of which is their
| reusable first stage.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I've been very impressed with the engineering accomplishments
| of his companies, and it seems he has been involved in some of
| that work.
|
| I was very disappointed however to hear that he openly supports
| the military coup in Bolivia against the democratically elected
| leader Evo Morales. The right wing Christian government that
| replaced him gave immunity to the military who then killed
| protesters in the wake of the illegal government takeover.
|
| And Musk tweeted "we will coup whoever we want" when asked
| directly about this. Pretty disgusting that he would have such
| a disregard for the democratic wills of the people of a
| sovereign nation.
|
| My father was an electrical engineer at Lockheed Martin who
| worked on rocket guidance systems out of college at Vandenburg
| Air Force Base. I grew up with a great love for rockets and
| space exploration. I really appreciate what SpaceX has done.
| But I am extremely disappointed that Elon is promoting the
| violent takeover of a democratic country.
|
| https://www.laprogressive.com/overthrow-of-democracy-in-boli...
| jccooper wrote:
| That tweet was a very typical Muskian joke, goading the
| supporters of what he sees as an obviously crazy conspiracy
| theory. (See "Tesla bankwupt" for a more developed version.)
| It's probably the best indication he doesn't have anything to
| do with anything in Bolivia.
|
| Besides the fact that even proponents of the theory can't
| come up with any better connection than "one of his products
| uses lithium", of course.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with it (though I
| wouldn't rule out the possibility). The question was just
| what he thinks of it, and I thought his response wasn't
| funny in the slightest. The coup in Bolivia is horrible.
| Not even remotely funny. It's tone deaf and insensitive at
| best.
| KorfmannArno wrote:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1287165288799252480
| justanotherhn wrote:
| pretty sure that was a joke.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Really? What makes you say that? It's not a funny joke
| coming from someone in a position to fund a coup for
| lithium... It's a super insensitive thing to say if nothing
| else. The right wing government that took over Bolivia
| murdered innocent civilians.
| spoopyskelly wrote:
| Your lack of a sense of humor isn't Elon's problem.
| Offense is taken, not given.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Should we have a sense of humor about Latin American
| countries being overthrown so powerful interests can
| exploit their natural resources? What you call a lack of
| humor is IMO genuine compassion for people who have
| suffered a great loss.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Should we have a sense of humor about Latin American
| countries being overthrown so powerful interests can
| exploit their natural resources?_
|
| I personally think we should have a sense of humour about
| everything.
|
| The Russian reversal is one example of finding humour in
| darkness [1]. I found Elon's joke to be in the category
| of the "be careful, or America will bring you some
| freedom" jokes that were popular during the Iraq war.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reversal
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| IMO it's a bit different when you're someone who
| financially benefits from the dark event. Like a random
| American joking about invading a company for oil, vs Dick
| Cheney saying that the invasion of Iraq will be great for
| Halliburton. There's a point where it stops being a
| "joke" and is just a sad fact.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Oh fuck off.
|
| (Are you going to take offense at that?)
| justanotherhn wrote:
| I don't know about OP but I laugh at your words. They
| mean nothing.
| jccooper wrote:
| Musk doesn't have a particularly compassionate sense of
| humor, nor much restraint on Twitter. It's cost him a lot
| of money in the past.
|
| But my guess is that he knows very few details about that
| coup, which allows him to joke about it. It wouldn't
| surprise me at all if he knew as much about it as most
| people in the US, including myself: nothing.
| rsa25519 wrote:
| Holy cow. This feels so surreal. I don't think things will stop
| feeling this way, and I don't really want them too.
|
| I still can't believe the moon landing was only fifty years ago.
| ben_w wrote:
| My partner and I are convinced we could hear the splashdown in
| sync with the visual.
|
| If that was real, how? (340 m/s)
|
| If the sound wasn't real, what was it?
| jcims wrote:
| That was playing in the control room. Either they faked it for
| effect or had some mics wired up to the chassis.
| barbegal wrote:
| It was people clapping in mission control but your brain wants
| to think the sound matches the images so your brain tricks you
| into thinking it is the sound of water splashing. This is
| sometimes known as the McGurk effect
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
| spike021 wrote:
| Maybe it was over the comms from inside the capsule?
|
| I heard it as well.
| Kuinox wrote:
| You don't see real-time, delay is added, and there is sound
| sync, they may have delayed the image so the sound is synced
| [deleted]
| HPsquared wrote:
| The splash probably wasn't audible from the distant camera -
| probably a mic mounted on the capsule. Edit: maybe there was a
| sound wave transmitted through the water? That would travel
| much faster than a sound wave in air.
| rtx wrote:
| It looks like billionaires are the most effective way to deploy
| resources in today's world. Spacex and Jio are great examples.
| idlewords wrote:
| Don't forget WeWork
| mattkevan wrote:
| And Theranos. And Enron. And Lehman Brothers. And Bernie
| Madoff.
| rtx wrote:
| Exactly my point, we need actual billionaires in control.
| mattkevan wrote:
| Like Trump?
| CrazyStat wrote:
| Elon was only worth ~150 million dollars when he started
| SpaceX. Obviously he should have stepped aside and waited
| for Bezos to do it.
| dsgisdngionio wrote:
| Don't forget Tesla, Solar City, and Theranos.
| anticensor wrote:
| and OpenAI
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Don't forget Tesla, Solar City, and Theranos.
|
| What does Tesla have in common with Theranos, aside from
| starting with the letter 't'?
| molszanski wrote:
| This comment doesn't seem to convey meaning beyond
| trolling. I would ignore it, but of course I might be
| wrong.
| firebaze wrote:
| The lack of drama is what dramatically displays the maturity of
| SpaceX technology.
|
| Congrats, I'm looking forward to the next steps. And I am so
| sorry american citizenship is required to apply for SpaceX jobs
| :-(
| new_realist wrote:
| If it were considered mature it wouldn't be on the front page
| of HN.
| isatty wrote:
| Plenty of mature technology/companies are on the front page
| of HN daily.
| kazagistar wrote:
| "First privately owned round trip to the ISS". Its obviously
| still a first, but its not a technical first, but an economic
| first. Hacker news focused on both technical and economic
| things, so this still is interesting for it, but that doesn't
| mean it is a new tech.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Perhaps the first reusable manned capsule? (Unless there's
| another)
| elliekelly wrote:
| I'm pretty sure there was a week in March/April where COBOL
| made the front page like every day...
| bemmu wrote:
| When they docked, the first words from the ISS crew were about
| where they could put their trash.
|
| Making it look mundane seems like a conscious choice.
| tpmx wrote:
| First: That's absolutely fantastic. Congratulations to everyone,
| etc.
|
| Second:
|
| I'm a bit disturbed that they are using Chromium + some
| javascript framework as the UI layer in the Crew Dragon.
|
| There was a sequence when Bob and Doug were debugging the local
| UI layer. I guess it was a good thing that didn't happen at a
| critical part of the flight.
|
| Edit: And I write this having spent 10 years working in a browser
| company in an engineering/engineering management role. I believe
| I have a decent understanding of the risks.
|
| Going with a browser-based UI for something as critical as this
| is insane, IMHO.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Haters gonna hate.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I missed that part... what happened with the UI layer?
| tpmx wrote:
| It believe it happened around 06:00-08:00 UTC earlier today.
|
| I got the play-by-play from https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/c
| omments/hzbqwn/rspacex_demo... when I was waking up (european
| time) but it seems like you can't really view all of the
| comments of a 3000+ comment thread. :(
|
| Hopefully someone who payed attention for real can chime in.
| zoomablemind wrote:
| The ground control explained that the problem was with
| Timeline app on Cmdr. Behnken's iPad. Somehow it was
| displaying wrong time point after disconnecting from wifi.
| Interim analysis suggested that the problem was related to
| bad cache and .. for some reason would be only addressed
| once landed. Apparently, this was due to mis-sync before
| switching wifi off. Meanwhile, the recommendation was to
| take the timeline snapshots from Cmdr. Hurley's iPad and
| AirDrop them over.
|
| A funny moment was when ground control asked the astronauts
| to turn off wifi and switch to the Airplane mode. Shouldn't
| it be renamed to Spaceship mode? :)
| tpmx wrote:
| Thanks!
| syshum wrote:
| I know right, clearly they should be using WinXP with IE and an
| active X control :)
| jniedrauer wrote:
| Browsers are the new operating system. This trend is only going
| to become more ubiquitous over time.
| kgraves wrote:
| I'm quite disturbed they aren't using Rust :(
| zaroth wrote:
| I made the same comment in another thread, but if you check the
| stream you can see they debugged an issue with an auxiliary app
| running on an actual iPad mini, not an issue with the apps
| running on the main screens mounted in front of the seats.
| tpmx wrote:
| Okay. Do you have a timestamp to the event (in the stream)?
| zaroth wrote:
| The other thread had it;
|
| https://youtu.be/13OkD0C_TWU?t=15045
|
| Note they are talking about Safari and Airplane Mode, and
| when the Dragon feed comes back up you can see the iPad in
| the astronaut's hand.
| tpmx wrote:
| Listened to it - got it, thanks; yeah, that makes sense.
| The Dragon crew displays won't be running something
| called Safari.
|
| I get to eat crow now. :)
|
| Still: I'm kinda skeptical of the use of chromium +
| javascript for anything life-critical.
| _Microft wrote:
| The can do all the important things using the hardware
| keys and buttons under the screen from what I know.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| SpaceX is a hopeful story in today's time
| _Microft wrote:
| Private vessels in the vincinity of the capsule, one waving a
| Trump flag? WTF.
|
| https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1290001444968505344/ph...
| matt-attack wrote:
| What's honestly wrong with that? If I owned a boat in the area,
| I would have though to cruise out take a look. What exactly
| would be the problem?
| khuey wrote:
| Hopefully you'd at least have the sense not to get _between_
| the recovery vessel and the spaceship.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's a dynamic rescue operation so you could easily end up in
| the way. It's also a space ship so there's toxic fuel and
| gasses involved.
|
| So lots of obvious problems and probably a few more that are
| less obvious.
| eric_b wrote:
| A lot of commenters here are upset about the "extra" boats that
| showed up during capsule recovery. Calling those people idiots
| and other pejoratives. OK. I mean yeah, I saw the Trump flag too.
|
| But... is military security really the answer? Exlusion zones in
| international waters for private company missions? The people on
| this forum saying the Coast Guard or navy should have been
| running security are the same ones saying that our police forces
| are too heavy handed and militarized. And now they want guns and
| military aggression when handling a private space craft recovery?
|
| The extra boats backed off immediately when told to, and as far
| as I can tell they were "peaceful". Shouldn't they have every
| right to assemble in international waters? Aren't we saying that
| peaceful assembly is a constitutional right in the US?
| gpm wrote:
| This is _stupidly dangerous_ for the people on those boats, and
| they probably don 't realize it. Crew Dragon is basically
| unexploded ordnance with a helping of gasses toxic at the PPM
| level. Everything went right today, and they broke out the
| oxygen tanks and masks because there was too much toxic gas in
| the air. It is highly irresponsible to allow them close.
| They're more than welcome to assemble in international waters,
| so long as they don't do so right beside the explosive device.
|
| This is not a private mission, this is a mission executed by
| the US government, who happened to subcontract out the vehicle
| to a private company. Hence why the government would reasonably
| be expected to pay for (directly, or indirectly as part of
| their contract) the security.
|
| Regardless of who pays for the security, the government (US and
| otherwise) frequently provides security, that's because they
| have a monopoly on the use of force. Consider, for example, how
| oversized loads on highways are frequently escorted by police
| (dependent on local laws).
| jessaustin wrote:
| _Consider, for example, how oversized loads on highways are
| frequently escorted by police (dependent on local laws)._
|
| This seems less common recently. Those giant tubes that I
| assume are the bottom section of wind masts are all over the
| road recently, and I never see any police. _Someone_ ought to
| write some tickets on the people who are afraid to pass with
| a 7.5 ' car in a 12'-wide lane when a load is hanging 1' over
| the lane, 7.5' off the ground...
| eric_b wrote:
| Two things 1) The capsule is not that dangerous. The SpaceX
| recovery crew was wearing cloth masks and short sleeves when
| it was hoisted on to the recovery boat. Sure, there were some
| toxic fumes, but if the recovery workers who are trained and
| know what they're doing can be within inches of it not
| wearing PPE, I think some dudes on a boat can be 20m away.
|
| 2) I'm mainly playing devils advocate. I have no problem with
| the military running security. I was more trying to show that
| the there is no rational way to reconcile the beliefs of the
| police defunders who ALSO want the military to step in, in
| this case.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| > The capsule is not that dangerous
|
| You have no idea what you are talking about.
| justanotherhn wrote:
| "police defunders"
|
| What? who said anything about the police??
| eric_b wrote:
| On HN the majority opinion is to "defund the police", at
| least from what I've seen. Overwhelmingly so. The
| majority opinion on this thread seems to be that the
| people in boats who went to see the splashdown up close
| were idiots, and military intervention is the way to fix
| it next time.
|
| My point is that the majority opinion on HN in regards to
| police/military engagement is at odds with the majority
| opinion on this thread.
| spoopyskelly wrote:
| Fascism is OK as long as it used against your "enemies".
| jessaustin wrote:
| It is a little weird to imagine solving the problem of
| boaters possible exposure to MMH/NTO, by shooting the
| boaters.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _shooting the boaters_
|
| Straw man [1]. The Coast Guard would be expected to
| deter, ticket and, in the most extreme circumstances,
| disable craft.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
| jessaustin wrote:
| This whole discussion is straw. The dude piddling around
| with the hatch on deck wasn't wearing anything for at
| least forty minutes, then he wore an oxygen mask for
| about ten minutes. Presumably the "deadly gas" was
| released during that time. He was touching the capsule.
| None of the boaters got within a boat length, and they
| backed off when requested. In future the pickup crew
| should just make that request earlier. Or, who knows,
| maybe they made the request exactly when they wanted to?
|
| Most of the whinging about boaters ITT is sour grapes
| from people who don't have the imagination or resources
| to do what the boaters did. The rest is some sort of
| fixation with Trump.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Ugh, what rhetoric. Defund the police is not abolishing
| the police, it is removing their responsibility as only
| tool we have in the toolbox against many different
| societal problems. The police are a hammer. Sometimes you
| need a hammer, especially if the problem is a nail.
| Problem is when someone has a few screws loose, they tend
| to also get hammered.
| justanotherhn wrote:
| If we were to do a poll you're probably right. The
| majority of HN is left leaning. Personally I don't want
| to defund the police (especially since i'm not from the
| US which would make my opinion invalid.) I'm going to
| make an assumtion and tell me if I'm right. You have been
| on Twitter for at least 2 hours in the last week. Is this
| the case? let me know if possible.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _The capsule is not that dangerous_
|
| It's SUPER dangerous. Crew Dragon's SuperDraco engines burn
| hydrazine [1]. Hydrazine is "is toxic and carcinogenic in
| small amounts" [2].
|
| [1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/01/23/spacex-releases-
| prelim...
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine
| inamberclad wrote:
| Random boats swarming is absolutely insane
|
| This is a RESCUE operation and they're getting in the way.
|
| Not to mention, there's still plenty of extremely poisonous UDMH
| on that thing.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Yeah, crazy.
| https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1290001490866708480
| lnx01 wrote:
| It's DNTO actually
| HPsquared wrote:
| That's the oxidiser, although the fuel (also according to
| Wikipedia) is MMH, not UDMH... It's probably just as
| dangerous though!
| avmich wrote:
| Probably more dangerous, nitrogen tetroxide is mostly
| strong oxidizer... while hydrazine is carcinogenic.
| saberience wrote:
| NTO will kill you if you breathe too much in, it's an
| oxidizer yes, but it's also highly toxic.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| And "too much" is measured in a relatively small parts
| per million.
| justin66 wrote:
| They're Floridians. They've fortified their immune systems by
| huffing bath salts and committing acts of cannibalism.
|
| It's baffling watching commentators describing the dangerously
| elevated levels of nitrogen tetroxide juxtaposed with the crew
| members wandering around in short sleeves.
| irontinkerer wrote:
| > They've fortified their immune systems by huffing bath
| salts and committing acts of cannibalism.
|
| That was one person, 10 years ago.
|
| > It's baffling watching commentators describing the
| dangerously elevated levels of nitrogen tetroxide juxtaposed
| with the crew members wandering around in short sleeves.
|
| And don't forget the cotton masks!
| serf wrote:
| > They're Floridians. They've fortified their immune systems
| by huffing bath salts and committing acts of cannibalism.
|
| Replace Floridian with any other regional group of people,
| and maybe you'll see that the only reason you get away with
| saying something so hateful is because the public sentiment
| towards Florida has shifted in recent years.
|
| Now here's the real question I propose : Because public
| opinion has made it okay to make fun of a group of people,
| are you personally okay with bringing the conversation down
| to that level?
|
| Personally speaking, I'm not.
|
| I humbly ask you to reassess your urge to discriminate
| against an entire group of people, just because they happen
| to have rolled the dice and landed on Florida.
| mulmen wrote:
| There's a disappointing lack of awareness On the part of
| these "Florida man" commenters that this amazing feat _took
| place in Florida_.
|
| Yes, there are teams all over the country that worked on
| this mission but it launched from and returned to Florida,
| like _hundreds_ of manned missions before.
|
| Show some respect for the thousands of Floridians that have
| contributed to the space coast.
| justin66 wrote:
| > saying something so hateful
|
| Your interpretation of my joke is so extreme that I don't
| know quite what to say about it.
|
| > just because they happen to have rolled the dice and
| landed on Florida.
|
| This is weirdly condescending towards Floridians in a way
| my absurd joke was not. _Of course I do not believe drug
| consuming cannibals are representative of Florida._ I also
| don 't believe living there is the result of a bad roll of
| the dice.
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| You can't exactly blame their curiosity. They are Floridians,
| so it's not like there's a lot common sense though. "Florida
| Man assists SpaceX recovery!" You know that during launches,
| people would attempt to get a closer view as well if it wasn't
| so secure. Look at the nimrods that encroach airport landings
| to feel the jet wash. Next time, there will probably be a
| larger escort fleet though.
| jmcqk6 wrote:
| So they're not responsible for their own dumbassery?
|
| They made a choice, and I really hope there are consequences
| for their decision.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sorry I didn't come out and say they were dumbasses, but I
| assumed that applied by referring to Florida Man it was
| inferred. Read in between the lines a little better.
| serf wrote:
| >They are Floridians, so it's not like there's a lot common
| sense though.
|
| I downvoted you; this kind of brash generalization about
| people because of their regional locality shouldn't be
| encouraged. It's expressing a silly and un-true meme as if it
| were the reality for all people living in Florida.
|
| You aren't the only one in this thread to do so, either. I
| hope in the future that anyone , anywhere in the world, will
| double think when they say "X is from Y, they must be Z",
| because it's never true for the herd.
| mholt wrote:
| I don't know how anything works, but where is the Coast Guard
| and/or Navy? Isn't security their job?
| Someone wrote:
| Why would security of commercial space flights be a Navy or
| Coast Guard job?
|
| If they have to get involved, IMO, they should send SpaceX
| the bill.
| elcritch wrote:
| The occupants are NASA astronauts, and SpaceX was hired by
| NASA to carry them so it's a clear case of public interest,
| IMHO. Also if they did bill them NASA would just get the
| bill and probably marked up.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| NASA hired SpaceX for transport.
| [deleted]
| koenigdavidmj wrote:
| The alternative is a private security force having arrest
| power or otherwise using force over this public area.
| That's not necessarily a win.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I suspect there'll be Coast Guard there next time.
| BooneJS wrote:
| Uninformed prediction: next landing site will be further from
| shore.
| imglorp wrote:
| The host hinted maybe they wouldn't announce it publicly next
| time either.
| savrajsingh wrote:
| Shocking to see private boats next to the capsule right after
| it had splashed down. Where's the common sense to remain at a
| safe distance?
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| 1) People don't like to be excluded.
|
| 2) Bragging rights.
| iso947 wrote:
| Seems main reason was political advertising for one of the
| candidates
| irontinkerer wrote:
| > Seems main reason was political advertising
|
| How do you get from 1 of ~20 boats waving a flag to "main
| reason"?
| marmshallow wrote:
| Here's a link to that part of the stream if anyone's
| interested. https://youtu.be/H-l6f4wcv2I?t=27524
|
| It is _extremely_ aggravating.
| markdown wrote:
| The link doesn't take one where you say it will take them.
| joezydeco wrote:
| SpaceX commentator: "I guess next time we shouldn't publicize
| the landing coordinates..."
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| They have to declare a hazard zone don't they? I suppose they
| could make it big enough to reduce the risk of anyone finding
| the actual landing area.
| JshWright wrote:
| They have to publish it in order to warn planes and boats to
| stay out of the area (for the vast majority of people that
| respect those notices).
| vvanders wrote:
| Reading about how toxic thruster fuel is was a real eye opener
| for me, bunch of god damn idiots in those boats.
|
| If I recall right the SR-71 used similar propellants to get the
| afterburners lit which made fueling... interesting.
| skykooler wrote:
| The SR-71 used triethylborane to light its engines, which is
| also used by SpaceX to light the main engines (in combination
| with triethylaluminum); these are also toxic chemicals, but
| different from the hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide used
| onboard the Dragon.
| vvanders wrote:
| Yeah, hence why I said "similar" they're both hypergolic if
| I remember correctly.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Small nit, but TEATEB isn't hypergolic, it's pyrophoric.
|
| Hypergolic indicates when when two propellants (a fuel
| and an oxidizer) come in contact with each other, they
| ignite spontaneously.
|
| Pyrophoric indicates that the fuel ignites when it
| contacts air (no oxidizer needed in a normal Earth
| atmosphere).
| vvanders wrote:
| It's listed as one of the more common[1] hypergolic
| propellants with LOX, pyrophoric is pretty much a
| superset of hypergolic(just that earth air brings the
| oxidizer "for free").
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant#C
| ommon
| foota wrote:
| I believe you mean subset, yes? In that some subset of
| hypergolic materials have a component of air as their
| oxidizer and are therefore pyrophoric.
| jccooper wrote:
| All previous splashdowns have been much further from shore and,
| moreover, done by squadrons of US Navy ships, so this really
| hasn't come up before. You don't really take your bass boat up
| to an aircraft carrier a few hundred miles offshore.
|
| I expect they'll have more than one Coast Guard vessel on hand
| next time, and will probably look into not publicizing the
| landing zone.
| Balgair wrote:
| I can imagine a few Flat-Earther nutjobs making things very
| interesting in the future. The USCG really needs to be
| involved in the future.
| taf2 wrote:
| Reminds me of the time I was helping move a boat and we were
| in the Gulf Stream when we saw an air craft carrier off in
| the distance. They launched a helicopter and buzzed us was
| pretty cool day
| Ziggy_Zaggy wrote:
| Has the crew exited the module?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, they're exiting now.
|
| https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1290016670287765505
|
| https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1290017288729407488
| Ziggy_Zaggy wrote:
| Phew - glad to see them come out safely!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-02 23:00 UTC)