4 ms·

Sadly, the internet has become a place to criticize and throw hate and doubt on basically anyone doing anything that is new, different or extraordinary. Heck,

by grecy 4y ago

Sadly, the internet has become a place to criticize and throw hate and doubt on basically anyone doing anything that is new, different or extraordinary. Heck, even when I set out to drive around Africa there was a mountain of hatred and anger saying it was impossible, and I would be beheaded in the first country. (Spoiler: I wasn't, I had a great time). I think it's important to remember that the very, VERY vast majority of people on the internet have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately it seems the people with the least idea are the loudest, and get given the biggest microphone.

ksec 4y ago
That same with media as well. It seems we are in a death spiral.
brookst 4y ago
Fortunately we have HN, where doubts about SpaceX are not allowed, in the name of open discussion.
- grecy 4y ago
  Of course doubts are allowed, but what I'm saying is that SpaceX clearly have a team of world-class experts. They've all spend decades training, practising and honing their craft. Based on their track record, I'd say they're pretty good at what they do. They may even be the best in the world. That makes it hard when some rando on the internet comes in to doubt or criticize, because it's virtually impossible for that rando to have more expertise than the entire SpaceX team. If a person actually run the numbers and backed up their thoughts with legitimate reasons and a better idea that would be one thing. But that never happens, which is the problem. If a government is aiming to increase the amount of renewable power, or a car company aims to make their cars more efficient, or a public transit operator wants to increase their service, or literally any one of billions of things that can be done, it is a waste of everyone's time for someone to chime in and say "Won't work because I said so" when they have absolutely zero experience, expertise or evidence to back up their thought that has no basis in reality.
  - brookst 4y ago
    > But that never happens, which is the problem. Does it never happen, or do you just never see it? Earlier today there was an HN post of an article suggesting that the Starship launch has more environmental and property risk than FAA or SpaceX has acknowledged, using data like the fact that a 50% thrust test in February produced sound pressures of 110db three miles away, while SpaceX estimates 100% thrust will produce 90-100db at that distance. The post was flagged and removed very quickly. I don't know the provenance of the article or its author, and maybe they made numbers up out of whole cloth, but none of the HN commenters rebutted the data or conclusions, it was just lots of "this anti-progress scumbag wants us to live in communist China" ad hominems. So maybe there just is no legitimate, fact-based criticism. Or, maybe, there is and it is just filtered out from the communities I typically frequent. Seeing that this morning definitely gave me some pause.
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      Perhaps the acoustics are different when the engines are actually accelerating a rocket, rather than held down on a test stand? Presumably, a test stand needs to direct all the sustained power outward horizontally in order to keep from being destroyed. A launch stand only needs to withstand exposure to high power for a few seconds, a relatively modest amount of total energy. Once the rocket is released and in the air, ideally all of the power is turning into kinetic energy rather than acoustic or thermal.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Yes! Those are all reasonable and plausible. It would have been great to have a discussion rather than banning the content because it dared to question SpaceX. At the very least, it was only because I happened to see the post before it was removed that I even knew that the February test produced between 10x and 100x as much sound as estimates suggested. As it stands, I don't know if your explanations are spot-on and the actual sound pressure will be as SpaceX estimates, and most people don't even know if there's a question about it. That doesn't seem... ideal, for the principles HN purports to support.

by grecy 4y ago

ksec 4y ago

That same with media as well. It seems we are in a death spiral.

brookst 4y ago

Fortunately we have HN, where doubts about SpaceX are not allowed, in the name of open discussion.

grecy 4y ago
Of course doubts are allowed, but what I'm saying is that SpaceX clearly have a team of world-class experts. They've all spend decades training, practising and honing their craft. Based on their track record, I'd say they're pretty good at what they do. They may even be the best in the world. That makes it hard when some rando on the internet comes in to doubt or criticize, because it's virtually impossible for that rando to have more expertise than the entire SpaceX team. If a person actually run the numbers and backed up their thoughts with legitimate reasons and a better idea that would be one thing. But that never happens, which is the problem. If a government is aiming to increase the amount of renewable power, or a car company aims to make their cars more efficient, or a public transit operator wants to increase their service, or literally any one of billions of things that can be done, it is a waste of everyone's time for someone to chime in and say "Won't work because I said so" when they have absolutely zero experience, expertise or evidence to back up their thought that has no basis in reality.
- brookst 4y ago
  > But that never happens, which is the problem. Does it never happen, or do you just never see it? Earlier today there was an HN post of an article suggesting that the Starship launch has more environmental and property risk than FAA or SpaceX has acknowledged, using data like the fact that a 50% thrust test in February produced sound pressures of 110db three miles away, while SpaceX estimates 100% thrust will produce 90-100db at that distance. The post was flagged and removed very quickly. I don't know the provenance of the article or its author, and maybe they made numbers up out of whole cloth, but none of the HN commenters rebutted the data or conclusions, it was just lots of "this anti-progress scumbag wants us to live in communist China" ad hominems. So maybe there just is no legitimate, fact-based criticism. Or, maybe, there is and it is just filtered out from the communities I typically frequent. Seeing that this morning definitely gave me some pause.
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    Perhaps the acoustics are different when the engines are actually accelerating a rocket, rather than held down on a test stand? Presumably, a test stand needs to direct all the sustained power outward horizontally in order to keep from being destroyed. A launch stand only needs to withstand exposure to high power for a few seconds, a relatively modest amount of total energy. Once the rocket is released and in the air, ideally all of the power is turning into kinetic energy rather than acoustic or thermal.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Yes! Those are all reasonable and plausible. It would have been great to have a discussion rather than banning the content because it dared to question SpaceX. At the very least, it was only because I happened to see the post before it was removed that I even knew that the February test produced between 10x and 100x as much sound as estimates suggested. As it stands, I don't know if your explanations are spot-on and the actual sound pressure will be as SpaceX estimates, and most people don't even know if there's a question about it. That doesn't seem... ideal, for the principles HN purports to support.