For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more rbanffy's commentsregister

I don't have much love for Java - it's an OK statically typed language - but I have the utmost respect for the Java runtime environment.

Clojure is a beautiful Lisp, and coupled with the JVM it's extremely powerful.


A lot of people abandon tech for less stressful careers. Things like air traffic control and firefighting, or deep sea diving for the oil industry.

> test the new heat shield which will replace the Artemis II design in an unmanned re-entry as well.

NASA desperately needs more options. They shouldn't need to expend an SLS to launch an uncrewed Orion with a test heatshield on a trajectory equivalent to a moon return. They should be able to launch that on top of a Falcon Heavy. A Falcon Heavy can launch 63 tons to LEO and a fueled Orion plus service module weights slightly north of 20 tons. An Orion mass simulator with enough attitude control mated with a FH second stage would leave a lot of delta-v to accelerate the capsule back into the atmosphere.


I'd prefer if we just wrote off space-x and pretend they don't exist.

SpaceX is the only major operator of spaceflights in the US: more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX, not just in the US, but worldwide.

That's an eye catching stat. What is the impact of starlink satellites on the number, ie what if you drop them from both numerator and denominator?

It looks like 70% of all satellites deployed in 2025 were starlink. Seems they make up over half (~65%) of all satellites currently in orbit.

> more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX

Another way to look at this number is that they are responsible for 95% of the light pollution caused by orbiting objects.


Lets just ban lightbulbs so we don't have light pollution.

We have regions where we deliberately minimize light pollution, but those regions aren't immune to Elon's swarm of photobombing satellites.

Not that I don't think it's cool to have a web of spacecraft enveloping the planet and bringing high-speed communications to everyone everywhere - it's pretty impressive to point up and show a train of satellites to a kid - but astronomers have been complaining about them and they are right.


why because "elon bad" ??

cut your nose off to spite your face if you want but the rest of us will recognize the importance of space-x and be grateful it is here.


This is about going to the moon. Space-x is over budget and extremely late. It has nothing to do with the management there, only that it is better to come up with a solution without them.

I only suggested a Falcon Heavy because the rocket exists, is flight proven, and has enough capacity to shoot an Orion to any trajectory it is expected to encounter.

If that was the truth I have a strong feeling your wording would be different.

Please read the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I literally can’t even continue this thread.


Because of your personal politics?

Imagine if NASA had the resources and the freedom to pursue a high-risk high-return strategy the same way SpaceX did. NASA can't afford high-profile failures because it needs political support to function from a Congress that doesn't understand engineering.

Now imagine the public good will if the US could have built a network of LEO satellites providing communications to everyone on Earth regardless of nationality, with equal access and funded by governments so that all their residents could have access to it for free (once they buy an antenna made in the US).

Some will say it'd be communism. I would say it could be part of a Pax Americana that doesn't involve coups, but is based on willing cooperation.


Luxi Mono was my daily driver for a while, with a patched zero (I added a dot at its center).

Reminded me of Sun consoles.


I prefer the original, from the 3270 terminals.

It's fun when we use software (and prodigious amounts of computation) to emulate the things people complained the most about in old hardware.

Cream is a very distinctive font. It’s perfect for Smalltalk. In the 1980s I remade it for the Apple II to be used in a game. Obviously very little text would fit on the screen it was used for.

Sadly, IBM 3270 is missing from the lot. How can I write professional looking code that lasts a lifetime in anything less?

I also remember some nice ones designed to look like a smoothed VT-220 one.


Remote work is a good replacement for commuting.

It’s a workable replacement for commuting a lot of the time. Some face to face is useful even if it’s only quarterly team meetings.

Absolutely, and I'd far rather take a 6 hour train ride once a quarter than a 30 minute commute every day

> it's Zoom

I heard something like that about the Concorde at the Air and Space Museum. What killed it was not fuel costs, but cheaper long-distance phone calls and fax machines.

But if a country takes the Chinese approach and pushed inexpensive rail as a way to open new economic opportunities, the idea of flying as your daily commute moves from ridiculous to feasible (if you replace the airplane with a train).


The thing that killed the Concorde was a fatal crash that killed everyone on board.

The thing was already losing money because it guzzled fuel and was horribly loud and uncomfortable inside, while still costing a fortune for tickets. Not many people really wanted to pay 1st-class fares for worse-than-economy comfort just to shave a couple hours off the flight. Also, the plane could only operate at supersonic speeds over the ocean, so when it flew to/from Texas, it had to operate at subsonic speeds (and guzzle even more fuel because it was inefficient at those speeds), and the average trip time wasn't that much faster than a regular jumbo jet. It had been going downhill for a while, but that fatal crash was the end; they stopped all operations after that.

Sure, better communications might have contributed to its downfall, but that would have affected all air travel; just comparing like-for-like, the Concorde really wasn't a great alternative to the subsonic jumbo jets which became more and more prevalent for transcontinental routes.


    What killed it was not fuel costs
No, it was definitely the cost to operate it and the sonic boom associated with flying at that speed. The company operating the Concorde never made a profit.

British Airways certainly made a profit from Concorde, which was operated by a separate division of the company.

I don't know if (then state-owned) Air France did.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You