3 ms·

Good rhetoric, but not good faith. Numbers the article mentioms: - Approvals were done for a 62MN rocket, launch is 74 - A test at 50% thrust in February mea

Good rhetoric, but not good faith. Numbers the article mentioms: - Approvals were done for a 62MN rocket, launch is 74 - A test at 50% thrust in February measured sound at 110db three miles away when the model used for approval estimated 90-110db for 100% thrust - Starship will have 10x the power of Falcon 9, launched from a complex 1/4 the size - The approval process used has never been used for a rocket complex before And lest you think I'm some owl-loving hippie, I am pro rockets and excited for the launch tomorrow. I just think it's important to allow dissenting views, especially when they do have data. Just suppressing them with smug "rockets good, any disagree bad, and disagree numbers meaningless" rhetoric is really not in the spirit HN claims to foster.

renewiltord 4y ago
Mate, let's go back to where the conversation started: > In terms of measurable outcome, what does "catastrophic" mean? Does "catastrophic" mean that launch thrust is higher? Does catastrophic mean that the sound is going to be higher? Does catastrophic mean that Starship will have 10x the power? Does catastrophic mean that the approval process hasn't been used? I mean, if the answer is that "catastrophic" was referring to one of those, then I think it's pretty clear it's hard to care right? From my perspective, having more power in a smaller size is not a catastrophic thing. That's what engineering is: doing more with less ("any fool can build a bridge...") It's perplexing to me that you have quoted things that are complete non-sequiturs to the question and then started giving me this "not in the spirit of HN" crap. Come on. I know Internet arguments require that you double down, but I think it was pretty clear from my very first sentence what I was looking for and it's pretty clear this blog post has none of it.

renewiltord 4y ago

Mate, let's go back to where the conversation started: > In terms of measurable outcome, what does "catastrophic" mean? Does "catastrophic" mean that launch thrust is higher? Does catastrophic mean that the sound is going to be higher? Does catastrophic mean that Starship will have 10x the power? Does catastrophic mean that the approval process hasn't been used? I mean, if the answer is that "catastrophic" was referring to one of those, then I think it's pretty clear it's hard to care right? From my perspective, having more power in a smaller size is not a catastrophic thing. That's what engineering is: doing more with less ("any fool can build a bridge...") It's perplexing to me that you have quoted things that are complete non-sequiturs to the question and then started giving me this "not in the spirit of HN" crap. Come on. I know Internet arguments require that you double down, but I think it was pretty clear from my very first sentence what I was looking for and it's pretty clear this blog post has none of it.