7 ms·

I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible. I'm really pleased to have been utt

I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible. I'm really pleased to have been utterly wrong. And 2/3rds of the boosters in today's test have already been into space. Mind blowing. Congratulations to all the hard working engineers at SpaceX!

chasd00 9y ago
hah i felt the same way. I remember when the Sky Crane was used to put Curiosity down on Mars, I thought there's just no freaking way that's going to work but they pulled it off. When SpaceX started talking about landing boosters I shook my head again but then they did it. The older I get the more blown away (and humbled) I am at what people are capable of achieving. On a lighter note there's a Simpons line when Homer has to land a plane and is talking to someone on the ground Colby: Okay Homer, I don't know anything about planes, but I know about you. You have what made America great: no understanding of the limits of your power and a complete lack of concern for what anyone thinks of you. So you'll land that plane. And do you know why? Because I heard some guy say you couldn't. Homer: What! I'll show him. I'll show that guy! The best way to get something great done is to tell someone it's impossible for them to achieve.
- angrygoat 9y ago
  nitpick - it was Curiosity that came down on Mars using a sky crane, Odyssey was an earlier mission
  - chasd00 9y ago
    thanks, i updated my post
  - hinkley 9y ago
    I had to look it up. Curiosity was the lander, Odyssey is the relay satellite. Both are the same mission. Before the sky crane we had the bouncy ball, and both had supersonic parachutes which is also a mind bender.
- sitkack 9y ago
  This whole thread should review Clarke's Three Laws[0] 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
  - greenhouse_gas 9y ago
    The (counter) corollary to rule #1: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      AFAIK Columbus should be grouped together with Bozo the Clown - his plan was rightfully laughed at; he only survived because he lucked into discovering a new continent halfway through the trip...
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        The Forrest Gump of the 1400's?
    - sitkack 9y ago
      To my defense, I never said getting laughed at makes one's idea any good.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Parcissons 9y ago
  In another article recently linked on HN, the author of the Unreal Engine explained how the impressive featurelist it had came to be- they simply looked on other peoples "engine" screenshots online- and decided - if other people could do that- so could they. Turns out- noone else had done it before- the "screenshots" where renderings - and they where involuntary pioneers. So to have the ilusion of the impossible allready having been accomplished (which students usually have at some point) and the delusion of beeing stupid while entering unfamiliar territory, while beeing to shy to ask the original "author" - that is where inovation originates.
pensivemood 9y ago
>I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible Please share why you thought it was not possible. Just curious.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Not parent, but I was surprised when I first heard of it. I thought it must be infeasible - in retrospect, for no reason other than vertical-standing rockets are associated with kitschy cover arts of old sci-fi stories. It didn't fit the more modern sci-fi aesthetics I grew in. Since realizing that I became more wary of unconscious biases picked up from environment, and how they affect what I think is technologically possible.
  - michrassena 9y ago
    Perhaps I grew up in a different era, but it's precisely that same aesthetic which makes me see these landings as futuristic because they align so well with those images. The ascent into space looks like a massive show of raw power, and in contrast these vertical landings look so graceful and controlled.
    - cr0sh 9y ago
      > The ascent into space looks like a massive show of raw power, and in contrast these vertical landings look so graceful and controlled. Personally, I think both are a "massive show of raw power" - both literally and figuratively. Literally goes without explanation. But what I mean of the word "figuratively" is that it shows our capability as a species to fully harness our intellect, knowledge, and emotions to do this kind of engineering, despite knowing it can all go horribly wrong (especially in the case of manned space flight). Certainly there are many other drivers to why we do this (profit in the case of SpaceX certainly is a great one), but part of it is also to show ourselves we can push beyond what seemed or seems impossible at times, and make it routine, and eventually both practical and relatively "safe" (always knowing it might never be perfect).
  - 9y ago
ohitsdom 9y ago
> I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible. SpaceX also had that same opinion originally. I believe their first concept was to use parachutes for the first stage (and maybe splash down in the ocean for recovery). They interviewed an engineer from Masten Space Systems (who have really cool test platforms). He was talking to them about VTVL (vertical takeoff, vertical landing) systems, and SpaceX basically just laughed at him.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Every revolutionary idea gets laughed at in the beginning precisely because it is so far out of the mainstream, if it wasn't ...

chasd00 9y ago

hah i felt the same way. I remember when the Sky Crane was used to put Curiosity down on Mars, I thought there's just no freaking way that's going to work but they pulled it off. When SpaceX started talking about landing boosters I shook my head again but then they did it. The older I get the more blown away (and humbled) I am at what people are capable of achieving. On a lighter note there's a Simpons line when Homer has to land a plane and is talking to someone on the ground Colby: Okay Homer, I don't know anything about planes, but I know about you. You have what made America great: no understanding of the limits of your power and a complete lack of concern for what anyone thinks of you. So you'll land that plane. And do you know why? Because I heard some guy say you couldn't. Homer: What! I'll show him. I'll show that guy! The best way to get something great done is to tell someone it's impossible for them to achieve.

angrygoat 9y ago
nitpick - it was Curiosity that came down on Mars using a sky crane, Odyssey was an earlier mission
- chasd00 9y ago
  thanks, i updated my post
- hinkley 9y ago
  I had to look it up. Curiosity was the lander, Odyssey is the relay satellite. Both are the same mission. Before the sky crane we had the bouncy ball, and both had supersonic parachutes which is also a mind bender.
sitkack 9y ago
This whole thread should review Clarke's Three Laws[0] 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
- greenhouse_gas 9y ago
  The (counter) corollary to rule #1: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    AFAIK Columbus should be grouped together with Bozo the Clown - his plan was rightfully laughed at; he only survived because he lucked into discovering a new continent halfway through the trip...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      The Forrest Gump of the 1400's?
  - sitkack 9y ago
    To my defense, I never said getting laughed at makes one's idea any good.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Parcissons 9y ago
In another article recently linked on HN, the author of the Unreal Engine explained how the impressive featurelist it had came to be- they simply looked on other peoples "engine" screenshots online- and decided - if other people could do that- so could they. Turns out- noone else had done it before- the "screenshots" where renderings - and they where involuntary pioneers. So to have the ilusion of the impossible allready having been accomplished (which students usually have at some point) and the delusion of beeing stupid while entering unfamiliar territory, while beeing to shy to ask the original "author" - that is where inovation originates.

pensivemood 9y ago

>I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible Please share why you thought it was not possible. Just curious.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Not parent, but I was surprised when I first heard of it. I thought it must be infeasible - in retrospect, for no reason other than vertical-standing rockets are associated with kitschy cover arts of old sci-fi stories. It didn't fit the more modern sci-fi aesthetics I grew in. Since realizing that I became more wary of unconscious biases picked up from environment, and how they affect what I think is technologically possible.
- michrassena 9y ago
  Perhaps I grew up in a different era, but it's precisely that same aesthetic which makes me see these landings as futuristic because they align so well with those images. The ascent into space looks like a massive show of raw power, and in contrast these vertical landings look so graceful and controlled.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    > The ascent into space looks like a massive show of raw power, and in contrast these vertical landings look so graceful and controlled. Personally, I think both are a "massive show of raw power" - both literally and figuratively. Literally goes without explanation. But what I mean of the word "figuratively" is that it shows our capability as a species to fully harness our intellect, knowledge, and emotions to do this kind of engineering, despite knowing it can all go horribly wrong (especially in the case of manned space flight). Certainly there are many other drivers to why we do this (profit in the case of SpaceX certainly is a great one), but part of it is also to show ourselves we can push beyond what seemed or seems impossible at times, and make it routine, and eventually both practical and relatively "safe" (always knowing it might never be perfect).
- 9y ago

ohitsdom 9y ago

> I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible. SpaceX also had that same opinion originally. I believe their first concept was to use parachutes for the first stage (and maybe splash down in the ocean for recovery). They interviewed an engineer from Masten Space Systems (who have really cool test platforms). He was talking to them about VTVL (vertical takeoff, vertical landing) systems, and SpaceX basically just laughed at him.

sitkack 9y ago
Every revolutionary idea gets laughed at in the beginning precisely because it is so far out of the mainstream, if it wasn't ...