Thread

1. fakwandi_priv · 1790601680 · focus · HN ↗

   I’m a bit saddened this thread has so little activity, 55 comments as of posting, here even though there are half a million people watching the spacex stream. Just watching the launch, the amount of technology and people involved is incredible.

   Prompting claude 5.5 has more appeal it seems.

   1. trentnix · 1790602211 · focus · HN ↗

      I'm watching in awe and not worrying about the malcontents that can't leave their politics at the door and celebrate genuine achievement.

      1. TkTech · 1790603772 · focus · HN ↗

         This is ballistics weapons technology, being progressed by a country that can't stop missile striking people, who has recently declared its intent to heavily weaponize space, whose leader has recently "claimed the moon", who is actively declaring its desire to annex its own allies, done by a corporation whose profits will be almost exclusively concentrated in a very small group of the already-wealthy in a country with horrific wealth disparity.

         The V-2 was also a technological achievement. Doesn't mean the UK was cheering it on.

         1. rafram · 1790605789 · focus · HN ↗

            Starship wouldn't be a very effective missile IMO.

            1. kibibu · 1790607674 · focus · HN ↗

               Depends which alpha version of Full Self Driving it has installed.
            2. parineum · 1790608765 · focus · HN ↗

               Imagine re-useable missiles though...

               /s because the Internet is crazy.

               1. pigpop · 1790614352 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not as crazy of an idea as it sounds. A bomber that could fly as fast as a missile and orbit the planet allowing it to deliver a payload and then return and land would be a useful technology. Might be a preferable way of delivering "Rods from God" style kinetic impactors since it wouldn't involve keeping an armed satellite in orbit where it could be targeted.
            3. [deleted] · 1790610948 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

            4. redox99 · 1790612647 · focus · HN ↗

               Cryogenic propellants alone are a deal breaker for this application.
            5. chasd00 · 1790622199 · focus · HN ↗

               > Starship wouldn't be a very effective missile IMO.

               that's putting it mildly, a war where ICBMs are used would be over before they could get the road closed to roll Starship and a booster to the pad...

               1. fragmede · 1790623985 · focus · HN ↗

                  Though, for point of reference, the biggest Soviet ICBM, the SS-18, could lift about a 9 ton payload for a 20 megaton nuclear explosive warhead. The minutemen iii's have 1 ton payload. Starship has shown today that I can do, call it a 60 ton payload.

                  That's a whole lotta MIRV capacity.

            6. dzhiurgis · 1790642160 · focus · HN ↗

               By itself no, but parking bunch of ballistic sats / hypersonic vehicles in orbit for 10th the price of enemy is attractive. A lot of strategy in war is not just capability but logistics and cost. And US has been particularly bad at keeping costs at bay.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.