Unbelievable! Watched with my 4 year old, he was full of questions about why the ocean was turning to nighttime, what satellites are, about going to another planet, about the earth being so blue and if we “ever even knew that before”.
Just wonderful stuff. So excited for the future.
hliyan · 6m ago
This is the same age when I started watching Star Trek (original series). To say it had a profound impact on my interest in science and ethics is an understatement. English wasn't even my first language, but I think I picked up a lot of the themes, and my interest in science, tech and ethical philosophy continues to this day. I actually wrote this bit about introducing children to Star Trek (answer is a bit dated now): https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6719/what-is-the-r...
dvt · 5h ago
So awesome, I hope to have kids one day precisely for this reason! One of my fondest memories is my dad quenching my curiosity (with a drawing, to boot!) of how satellite dishes work when I was 6 or 7.
monero-xmr · 3h ago
My kids learning to ride a bike - the moment you release your hand for the first time and they just go and go. When my son learned checkers, and then when he beat me the first time. When my daughter told her first original joke at a family dinner and everyone died laughing.
The moments truly never stop. Every single day they amaze and surprise you, fill you with so much love and joy and appreciation.
One time Bill Gates was asked what gave him joy and without missing a beat he said his children. Nothing is greater, nothing gives you more meaning, nothing is more ultimate than the sacrifice and patience and wonder and fulfillment of having children.
adonese · 2h ago
Thanks for this. We are expecting one in two months (our first), and reading this made me happy.
bombcar · 2h ago
There's a moment of abject horror, fascination, wonder, surprise, and pride when you suddenly recognize yourself in your children; a moment, a word, even just a holding of the head and you're staring into a mirror ...
vaxman · 3m ago
[delayed]
monero-xmr · 2h ago
It is a complete shift in world view. In BC (before children) you lived one way, then in AD (after delivery) you live another. Complete and utter change in priorities, outlook, experience, meaning, fundamental shift that those without children cannot understand
doug713705 · 21m ago
And people with children cannot understand what it is to live a whole life in full freedom. I'm over 50 years old and I fully love my life as it is and have never regretted my choice of not having children (and never will).
Not that my choice is suitable for everybody, but the most common choice is not suitable for everybody either.
holoduke · 5m ago
I can understand. I have 4 small kids. The amount of freetime us near zero. I can sometimes envy your life
whatbutwhy · 1h ago
67
qmr · 1h ago
Go directly to steam and download Kerbal Space Program.
Thank me later.
erulabs · 57m ago
Oh I will. My boy just turned 4, so he’s a little young for video games right now. Maybe 5 or 6? But we played spaceships in the park all evening. Looking forward to gaming age for sure!
mikewarot · 5h ago
I'm amazed the thing landed right next to the Buoy, and was seen from the BuoyCam.
gibolt · 4h ago
This has happened many times so far. Control to reach a specific landing point is quite good (when things don't go boom first)
m4rtink · 3h ago
This is definotely on purpose & quite important for the upcomming starship catching for rapid reusability. :)
enkonta · 3h ago
Well that's part of what makes this interesting. Some part of it did go boom. Looked like a COPV or something exploded sometime after payload deployment
chasd00 · 5h ago
Was cool to see the pez dispenser door start to open and all that vapor get sucked outside.
The booster ditch was super cool, hover then just cut the engines and let it drop.
chasd00 · 5h ago
Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.
kersplody · 4h ago
Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.
ericcumbee · 4h ago
It accomplished all the goals for this flight. That’s 100% successful
rlt · 4h ago
They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry.
But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time.
TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
dotnet00 · 4h ago
The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships.
It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.
JumpCrisscross · 8m ago
> rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships
As you say, they reïnforce each other by speeding up the learning curve and deployment of learning to the real world, serving as both a bolstering of the product and experimental validation.
ACCount37 · 4h ago
The stated goal was always to have a lot of ships, and also to have them be reusable.
Starship is a fuel-hungry beast - it can get to LEO by itself, but it needs a lot of tanker launches to go beyond. And if your goal is a Mars colony, you don't want to be limited to one launch per launch window.
avar · 3h ago
If "rapid reusability" was a proxy goal for maintaining a given launch pace we wouldn't need any of this.
We could just construct 200 Space Shuttles and spend months refurbishing them after every flight, and still send one up every week.
The goal is to drive down launch costs, time is money, and a system that requires time consuming refurbishments is more expensive.
paulhart · 4h ago
Their scenario is that the ships are mostly going to be "fuel mules" to ferry propellant to the ship that is destined to go somewhere (i.e. Mars) - so if you want an armada to travel to another planet, you need a much larger fleet of supply vehicles to prepare your armada. Hence the need to mass produce them.
gibolt · 4h ago
Not at odds at all. It doesn't matter how fast you can make them if each one costs $5-10 million. Much better to amortize that over 100+ flights and not waste the booster.
Once the tanker version is needed, a ship ship could go up 5+ times a day. The logistics of backfilling a pad with a new ship is much more involved
BurningFrog · 3h ago
The ship and booster both sank in the ocean as planned, so there is no inspecting and repairing phase.
I think that work can be done quite well based on all the footage and other collected metrics.
Mildly interesting to be exposed to the world of 'YouTube engineers' who are derisory of the real-world engineering success of SpaceX. Informed criticism is fine but when you're just openly calling a world class engineering company 'stupid' then you deserve to be ignored (except, obviously, by everyone suffering from MDS).
imnotjames · 2h ago
They are extremely hydrophilic.
Geee · 5h ago
Yes, although one booster engine failed at the start. Not a big deal. :)
rlt · 4h ago
The nice thing about SpaceX’s rapid iteration philosophy (and having Starlink as its first “customer”) is that they can account for engine unreliability by building extra margin into early launches, fly with reduced payloads, collect data on failures, and improve the reliability over time.
imglorp · 3h ago
They said ahead of time they were shutting one booster engine down to test redundancy.
itishappy · 3h ago
They did that too, but they also had an early engine failure. No big deal, they're redundant, and the booster they caught during flight 8 suffered worse.
ericcumbee · 3h ago
that was on the landing burn. they had a engine out on the ascent.
jiggawatts · 3h ago
A composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) seems to have exploded on the upper stage during reentry. It did significant damage to the rear flap and it made some dents in the engines too.
gpm · 2h ago
The rear flap was damaged before that explosion, not sure by what.
Are the tiles on Starship going to need replacing after flight like the Shuttle? There isn’t a permanent material that can handle all the heat yet? Serious question, my space expertise is only from KSP.
dotnet00 · 4h ago
The intention is to need minimal to no replacement between flights. Part of the purpose of these tests is to figure out how to do that.
The tiles themselves work fine, but how to best mount them? where do you need them? Can you make them thinner? do you need anything underneath? what kind of gap do you need between tiles? Those are the things they're hoping to understand in these tests.
The Shuttle tiles were technically reusable AFAIK. The issue was that they were very fragile and the Shuttle for the most part could not tolerate any heat getting through the tiles (being aluminum), so every flight needed to have a perfect heat shield. Starship is a bit better on that end, as stainless steel is a lot more capable of tolerating heat and I think the tiles are a bit less fragile. Still, would be ideal to figure out how to not drop any tiles.
JumpCrisscross · 5m ago
> Shuttle tiles were technically reusable
Would note that Shuttle tiles were never mass manufactured. The Shuttle’s shape meant lots of unique tiles. And its lack of mass production meant each tile was basically an artisanal object.
SpaceX aims to reüse tiles over many flights. But even if some tiles need replacing after each launch, that doesn’t tank Starship per se.
themafia · 3h ago
> every flight needed to have a perfect heat shield.
Which is a little easier to do when your craft is shaped like a plane and not a simple cylinder. The loading and positioning were easier to model and then achieve in flight.
The shuttle also flew with repair kits and glue that could be used in a vacuum. The astronauts could perform an EVA and work to replace damaged tiles and there were published plans on how to do so. NASA unfortunately figured out very late that using the Canadarm to image the bottom of the shuttle immediately on achieving orbit was extremely necessary given the icing problems of the external tank.
dotnet00 · 3h ago
I thought that while the spare tiles did exist, there was never an actual safe procedure for replacing tiles (that didn't require being docked to the ISS) they were only carried to be available when the choice was between losing the entire crew on reentry or risking a crew member?
I don't quite understand how the airplane shape made it easier to model the loading and positioning? (Not saying you're wrong, just doesn't fit my intuition and I'm curious).
My understanding is that Shuttle didn't have to answer the questions about tile gaps etc because it used glue rather than mechanical attachments, if that's what you mean by positioning.
mayama · 1h ago
> I don't quite understand how the airplane shape made it easier to model the loading and positioning? (Not saying you're wrong, just doesn't fit my intuition and I'm curious).
You can approximate space shuttle reentry to roughly a 2d surface entering atmosphere. Because of airplane shape, the tile side faces atmosphere and the plasma goes around plane edges. Where as starship being cylinder doesn't have any separation boundary and plasma roughly goes more than 180% of the cylinder.
chrisbrandow · 1h ago
Having seen the shuttle in person in LA museum, I was struck by how much it looked like a plane sitting on a flat heat shield surface
floating-io · 4h ago
Remains to be seen. That's what they want, but it's never been done before. (edit: clarity: they do NOT want to replace them after each flight.)
They're currently experimenting with things such as actively cooled tiles (which I presume were installed on this ship, since they were on the last two).
I personally think the likely best case is that they'll have to go over the ship and replace some here and there before launching again.
ericcumbee · 4h ago
Even if they don't get to a no replacement....they still already have a massive improvement over Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle basically every tile was unique, and and the pattern was different between the different orbiters. A good bit of the months of refurbishment of the Orbiter between flights was heat shield repairs. SpaceX has already shown from when they completely retiled one of the ships. they have cut down the time to replace a single tile down to minutes instead of the hours it took with the shuttle. The Tiles are also alot more standardized so they can be more mass produced than shuttle tiles.
floating-io · 4h ago
Absolutely!
I think there are still a few unique tiles on Starship around joints and such IIRC, but either way, the number of tile types is much smaller for Starship.
To my thinking, the sane sequence will be launch; catch; survey and maintain (heat shield and other items); and then launch again 24 hours later if everything checks out.
And that will be an absolutely massive improvement over what we have today, let alone what we had with the Shuttle.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
haberman · 5h ago
Landed on target in the Indian Ocean! Engines relit successfully and it touched down vertically (and then promptly exploded, which I guess was the plan :)
niteshpant · 5h ago
I thought it exploded after it landed?
decimalenough · 5h ago
Well, yes, it landed in the ocean by design and toppled over because that's what happens when you land a 50m tall spaceship vertically in water.
schoen · 4h ago
This sequence of events (even though expected!) reminds me a lot of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail speech:
> Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.
(although I suppose this ship fell over, then burned down, and then sank into the ocean)
bombcar · 4h ago
It’s basically a direct description of the reusable booster tests.
Polizeiposaune · 5h ago
That's the expected result for this test flight.
bombcar · 5h ago
There wa supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom. And there was.
nsxwolf · 5h ago
That was expected. It’s not meant to land on water.
gibolt · 4h ago
It is, for the purpose of this test. Don't want it coming back down on land somewhere unexpected :)
Successful splashdown! Looks like they nailed all the objectives, and not a moment too soon.
JKCalhoun · 5h ago
Some kind of failure in the lower engine area.
Figure it's going to burn up on entry?
EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
dotnet00 · 5h ago
The walls are 3mm thick steel, they're very likely to buckle and tear when it tips over, the residual methane vapor gets out and there are plenty of sources of heat to ignite it.
They don't claim to have any plans of recovering the wreckage, but they have previously fished up wreckage for study, so it's still possible they decide to do that.
asadotzler · 2h ago
generally 4mm for the barrel sections, plus all the stringers that add rigidity to that 4mm.
BurningFrog · 4h ago
It's not meant to perform well after landing in water, is how I would phrase it.
m4rtink · 4h ago
Maybe just some part of the construction (possibly even just the strinngers or simply some nook or cranny that is fully eclosed) got presurized or was pressurized for the whole time by just air that could not escape.
That would be fine for the fligt so far - until it started to heat up from re-entry heating. The stainless steel would be still fine if heated to hundreads of degrees, but the expanding gass could maybe make the enclosed volume to rupture ?
Or a mix of methane and oxygen accumulating somwhere and exploding - but that seems less likely to me in a near vacuum environment during re-entry.
dotnet00 · 4h ago
IIRC they have pressure vessels in the lower fins with some of the gasses they need. Maybe one of those was damaged and burst. To me it looked like something blew out the bottom of one of the fins (maybe got too hot) and hit the skirt.
nuker · 2h ago
> Some kind of failure in the lower engine area.
The girl in NASASpaceflight video linked at top said maybe one of the three oxygen vents blew up due to some kind of buildup. Location makes sense.
pixl97 · 5h ago
It made it, but there was some toastyness on the bottom of the lower flaps. This said, it is less bad than we've seen on the other 2 landings.
ls612 · 5h ago
Sounds like they removed a few too many heat tiles before launch.
decimalenough · 5h ago
Everything nominal so far and payload deployment was successful for the first time. Re-entry starts at around T+0:45.
loeg · 5h ago
Which is in about 4 minutes.
pixl97 · 5h ago
And it splashed down successfully too.
rsyring · 1h ago
Anyone know the best way to get the SpaceX video from Twitter/X onto Apple TV?
My current method is to screen share from an iPad after starting the video on Safari. Trying to Airplay gave me audio but not video on the TV. But, the screen share has a pretty large letterbox around it, was hoping to get full screen video.
np1810 · 17m ago
> Anyone know the best way to get the SpaceX video from Twitter/X onto Apple TV?
I don't have Apple TV but for videos on X, I download it temporarily to a intermediate server then stream using VLC [1] it's a hassle but I get great watching experience on all platforms. For now, you can stream this on VLC: https://bin.hrzn.pics/0AdLye8
Though I generally watch Everyday Astronaut's [2] coverage on YouTube.
Yeah Airplay is probably the best option, I had no problems playing it from my Macbook.
K0balt · 5h ago
Looks like they hit all the objectives!
Splashdown right next to the buoy!
Awesome to see it all go right.
rkagerer · 2h ago
Nice! I know they were intentionally stressing the flaps, but saw at least one was on fire again and deteriorating. How big an issue is this and how are they likely to solve it?
jprd · 5h ago
They did it. Damn.
Pigalowda · 5h ago
So the starlink simulators its deploying right now are empty platters that will burn up in the atmosphere from what I understand. Next missions they’ll be real statlink sats. Are these different than regular sats? It sounds like they’re able to handle more bandwidth but I don’t know.
decimalenough · 5h ago
Starship will be deploying the next gen v3 satellites, which weigh about 2 tons each. A single Starship launch with 60 of these deploys more capacity than 20 launches of a Falcon 9.
Pedro_Ribeiro · 2h ago
The figures they've been talking of the ideal cost per launch of starship are even more insane. I'm sure some of it is hype farming on Twitter but if they get the cost to less then $1000/kg it would be incredible.
geerlingguy · 1h ago
IIRC the v3 sats can do like 1 Tbps of bandwidth thanks to a larger antenna system?
xeromal · 4h ago
Wow, that really puts it into perspective
kersplody · 4h ago
Next flight should be a mass simulator of at least 100 tons to orbit. This flight was around ~10 tons to almost orbit.
The economics of Starlink basically require high cadence Starship launches with 50+ Starlink v3 satellites on each flight.
Teever · 4h ago
Isn't starlink a revenue generating endeavor already?
daemonologist · 4h ago
Yes; I think it would be more accurate to say that the economics of Starship basically require high cadence launches with lots of v3 Starlink satellites (because only the big internet constellations can financially justify launching so much payload to orbit right now).
jdminhbg · 5h ago
Yes, they're bigger than the current Falcon 9 rockets can launch and can handle more bandwidth.
14 · 3h ago
I can't help but think of one cray thing...This is absolutely amazing to watch. The fact that there are cameras at every stage showing exactly what is happening. Being able to see the curvature of earth all in hi-def. But the entire time I watch this I just keep thinking even with all this proof you still will not convince some people that the moon landings are real and that the earth is not flat. They will say these are just AI videos used to trick people from the truth.
It just amazes me that technologies have come so far that at one end we can really show that the earth is truthfully a sphere but also at the same time technology has come so far one can claim this is just another video created by AI and is not actually true.
pixl97 · 3h ago
Yea, I'm older and remember the shuttle days. It's the video all the way to the ground that amazes me every time (well at least when the orbiter is aligned properly and not turning into a meteor shower).
chpatrick · 5h ago
Incredible.
loeg · 5h ago
Dude, they nailed it. Amazing.
metalman · 6h ago
starship 10
apical_dendrite · 4h ago
[flagged]
dang · 1h ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait and generally using HN for political/ideological battle? You may not owe $ThatPerson better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Pretty sure the DOGE intent was good, but real efforts were mostly sidelined for the Trump pony show. Thus the 'fighting' words that followed when the BBB tax cut showed up.
vjvjvjvjghv · 3h ago
DOGE never tried to do good work. It was a hit and run job to satisfy Musk's ego and get rid of stuff he personally doesn't like. It didn't save much money and didn't create any efficiency.
mrheosuper · 2h ago
DOGE is the best example of Dunning-Kruger effect. A bunch of smart kids think they are better than everyone.
skywhopper · 2h ago
You’ve been seriously misled or you’ve forgotten what happened. How did the illegal shutdown of USAID and the waste of billions of dollars of medicine, food, and health care for the poorest folks in the world come from good intentions? How did the irresponsible injection of inexperienced outsiders into the SSA come from good intentions? How is cancelling billions of ongoing federal contracts without cause and withholding payments for work already done an effect of good intent?
Just wonderful stuff. So excited for the future.
The moments truly never stop. Every single day they amaze and surprise you, fill you with so much love and joy and appreciation.
One time Bill Gates was asked what gave him joy and without missing a beat he said his children. Nothing is greater, nothing gives you more meaning, nothing is more ultimate than the sacrifice and patience and wonder and fulfillment of having children.
Not that my choice is suitable for everybody, but the most common choice is not suitable for everybody either.
Thank me later.
The booster ditch was super cool, hover then just cut the engines and let it drop.
But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time.
TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.
As you say, they reïnforce each other by speeding up the learning curve and deployment of learning to the real world, serving as both a bolstering of the product and experimental validation.
Starship is a fuel-hungry beast - it can get to LEO by itself, but it needs a lot of tanker launches to go beyond. And if your goal is a Mars colony, you don't want to be limited to one launch per launch window.
We could just construct 200 Space Shuttles and spend months refurbishing them after every flight, and still send one up every week.
The goal is to drive down launch costs, time is money, and a system that requires time consuming refurbishments is more expensive.
Once the tanker version is needed, a ship ship could go up 5+ times a day. The logistics of backfilling a pad with a new ship is much more involved
I think that work can be done quite well based on all the footage and other collected metrics.
Starship's Tenth Flight Test - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45007907 - Aug 2025 (233 comments)
The tiles themselves work fine, but how to best mount them? where do you need them? Can you make them thinner? do you need anything underneath? what kind of gap do you need between tiles? Those are the things they're hoping to understand in these tests.
The Shuttle tiles were technically reusable AFAIK. The issue was that they were very fragile and the Shuttle for the most part could not tolerate any heat getting through the tiles (being aluminum), so every flight needed to have a perfect heat shield. Starship is a bit better on that end, as stainless steel is a lot more capable of tolerating heat and I think the tiles are a bit less fragile. Still, would be ideal to figure out how to not drop any tiles.
Would note that Shuttle tiles were never mass manufactured. The Shuttle’s shape meant lots of unique tiles. And its lack of mass production meant each tile was basically an artisanal object.
SpaceX aims to reüse tiles over many flights. But even if some tiles need replacing after each launch, that doesn’t tank Starship per se.
Which is a little easier to do when your craft is shaped like a plane and not a simple cylinder. The loading and positioning were easier to model and then achieve in flight.
The shuttle also flew with repair kits and glue that could be used in a vacuum. The astronauts could perform an EVA and work to replace damaged tiles and there were published plans on how to do so. NASA unfortunately figured out very late that using the Canadarm to image the bottom of the shuttle immediately on achieving orbit was extremely necessary given the icing problems of the external tank.
I don't quite understand how the airplane shape made it easier to model the loading and positioning? (Not saying you're wrong, just doesn't fit my intuition and I'm curious).
My understanding is that Shuttle didn't have to answer the questions about tile gaps etc because it used glue rather than mechanical attachments, if that's what you mean by positioning.
You can approximate space shuttle reentry to roughly a 2d surface entering atmosphere. Because of airplane shape, the tile side faces atmosphere and the plasma goes around plane edges. Where as starship being cylinder doesn't have any separation boundary and plasma roughly goes more than 180% of the cylinder.
They're currently experimenting with things such as actively cooled tiles (which I presume were installed on this ship, since they were on the last two).
I personally think the likely best case is that they'll have to go over the ship and replace some here and there before launching again.
I think there are still a few unique tiles on Starship around joints and such IIRC, but either way, the number of tile types is much smaller for Starship.
To my thinking, the sane sequence will be launch; catch; survey and maintain (heat shield and other items); and then launch again 24 hours later if everything checks out.
And that will be an absolutely massive improvement over what we have today, let alone what we had with the Shuttle.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
> Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.
(although I suppose this ship fell over, then burned down, and then sank into the ocean)
It landed on the sea, there was no barge afaik.
Figure it's going to burn up on entry?
EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
They don't claim to have any plans of recovering the wreckage, but they have previously fished up wreckage for study, so it's still possible they decide to do that.
That would be fine for the fligt so far - until it started to heat up from re-entry heating. The stainless steel would be still fine if heated to hundreads of degrees, but the expanding gass could maybe make the enclosed volume to rupture ?
Or a mix of methane and oxygen accumulating somwhere and exploding - but that seems less likely to me in a near vacuum environment during re-entry.
The girl in NASASpaceflight video linked at top said maybe one of the three oxygen vents blew up due to some kind of buildup. Location makes sense.
My current method is to screen share from an iPad after starting the video on Safari. Trying to Airplay gave me audio but not video on the TV. But, the screen share has a pretty large letterbox around it, was hoping to get full screen video.
I don't have Apple TV but for videos on X, I download it temporarily to a intermediate server then stream using VLC [1] it's a hassle but I get great watching experience on all platforms. For now, you can stream this on VLC: https://bin.hrzn.pics/0AdLye8
Though I generally watch Everyday Astronaut's [2] coverage on YouTube.
[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vlc-media-player/id650377962
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtUMt0gsqrs
Splashdown right next to the buoy!
Awesome to see it all go right.
The economics of Starlink basically require high cadence Starship launches with 50+ Starlink v3 satellites on each flight.
It just amazes me that technologies have come so far that at one end we can really show that the earth is truthfully a sphere but also at the same time technology has come so far one can claim this is just another video created by AI and is not actually true.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.