Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | m4rtink's commentslogin

IIRC reentry plasma is actually highly radar reflective - so it is not hard to track, just hard to hit due to the speed, as there is limited time to do it.

If that were the case then the mach-10 Kinzhal would be harder to hit than the mach-5 Kh-32.

But the interception rate for the Kh-32 is basically nonexistence (<1%).

The Kh-22/32 is why mach-5 + maneuverability is the current goal of offensive missile systems.

The plasma has complex interaction with radar, it's not stealth as in entirely invisible just chaotic scattering and reflections. The result is a jamming effect preventing a definite intercept solution.

On the other hand the plasma shows up on satilite based IR tracking systems.


Just another monday in any big old company adjecent to finance or airline industry ? ;-)

I blame the "space race" narrative - it made everything unsustainably expensive just to beat the goal of landing on the Moon by the end of the decade and before the Soviets. That also made the program even more dependant on political whims and easy target for budget cuts in the Vietnam era.

I recommend looking into the space flight plans from the pre Apollo - while tere were bonkers ideas like Project Horizon, most of the plans sounded quite sensible, with incremental building of space infrastructure and emphasis on cost and reusability (in the 1960s).

Of course when it became a race all the sustainability and infrastructure went out of the window and got sacrificed in the name of speed. :P


On the press conference they mentioned the RCS was used to orient the craft with the most sturdy part facing down for the ocean impact.

Otherwise I would also just bet on RCS venting like in Apollo.


Lot of the world is ocean & they basically decided the landing point the moment they entered the free return trajectory, 9 days prior - easier to shift the landing point a little to a different place in the ocean place with better weather tha. to switch to a backup airport.

With lunar landing flights they would still have to choose 4 days before, as long as they do direct return.

Eventually you want to break to Earth orbit (propulsively or aerodynamically) and board a dedidacted craft for landing. But till then water landing capsules work.


Well, provided you had a 30 MW microwave transmitter on board, you could punch through the plasma just fine, it has been done:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

"Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,000 km/h; 7,600 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,400 °C), requiring an ablative shield to dissipate the heat. The high temperature caused a plasma to form around the missile, requiring extremely powerful radio signals to reach it for guidance. The missile glowed bright white as it flew."


I'm pretty sure it did not stick anything through the plasma sheet- that is impossible. You would eithe melt the thing or just shift the plasma sheet a bit. It forms as air is compressed on contact, simple as that.

What IIRC was actually done was that some antennas were placed on the back of the shuttle & its size was big enough that the plasma bubble would not fully envelope it - it would be open up to space. And that antenna on the back would communicate with TDRS satellites through this gap, enabling contact through the whole re-entry.

Starship does basically the same, just with Starlink satellites instead of TDRS.


I always feel like these analogies don't really fit the real space flight as you quite often have a lot of time to correct the trajectory if you get it roughly right during launch and even that takes a couple minutes. You also have closed circuit guidance and external radar stations to verify the trajectory.

You really don't have anything like that when playing golf, so I don't thin it is a good analogy.

But for the old Sprint anti balistic missile - that was spot on. :D Hitting ICBM warheads kilometers abobe ground, second before detonation - yeah, that fits. It also dispelled the myth that you can't communicate to compact craft due to re-entry plasma. Of course you can, just use a 30 MW radar beam & it will get through just fine! Not to mention the Sprint missile was protected by an ablative heatshield and covered by plasma going up during launch. :D


There’s a big difference (not really as much as you might think because fuel is limited) between a single shot with no thrusters and a rocket that has all sorts of adjustments possible.

It’s all in fun, really, like the old analogies involving hard drive heads and jet planes.


NERVA as envisioned had terrible thrust to weight ratio, not really usable to launch from a Super Earth. Nuclear lightbulb, orion or heck NSWR would likely work though. And bonus points for not having to think about landing systems for the return trip. ;-)

In that case aliens from a super Earth would be unable to get off it unless they decided to salt their biosphere with fissile waste. NERVA is at least contained if it works properly.

So no space program from a super Earth until they figure out not just fusion but compact high density fusion that could fly. You’d need stuff like in The Expanse, or at least in that rough ballpark.

Using fission is something they probably wouldn’t do unless they faced an existential reason forcing them to go to space, like deflecting an asteroid.


I think a launch loop would still work, even on a Super Earth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

Or potentially beamed power for launch, so you don't kug a power source. But in any case, indeed much harder. :)


Yeah.

I’m a little obsessed with Orion though. The fact that the math works on that lunacy. The good old devil’s pogo stick.

If you could make pure fusion bombs it would be maybe politically viable, especially if you also use superconducting magnets to make it less just brute force. You’d still induce a little radioactivity from neutrons but it would be short lived and not even close to fissile fallout bad.

To see that thing launch. From somewhere very remote though, probably Antarctica. And from many miles away, and probably with welders glass. But damn. That would be epic.


I find it interesting how a lot of cyberpunk does not really include AI or does not present it in transformative way. There is a lot of mind uploading, implants, corpo fun and overall technology permeating all aspects of life, but often AI itself does not actually play a big role.

Counterexamples that come to mind are Neuromancer (AI driving the plot) and Blade Runner (AI antagonists.)

A compromise thesis might be that in cyberpunk media, AI is at never powerful or motivated to fundamentally reform the worldwide crapsack economic system. They don't abolish corporations, although they might take them over.

Of course, if there was a story about an AI taking over the world into a post-scarcity society, it probably wouldn't be filed under "cyberpunk" either...


Rampant capitalism is kinda genre-defining for Cyberpunk so Cyberpunk without corporations wouldn't really be Cyberpunk. _The Matrix_ only qualifies as Cyberpunk because within the matrix the machines effectively control the capitalist power structures to exert their influence.

Abundance/scarcity isn't really about availability, it's more about access. You can have a cyberpunk story in a "post-scarcity" setting in the sense of availability (due to sci-fi tech) but you can't have it without unequal access to those resources.


Right: I'm implying that the genre definition itself places an upper-bound on how impactful AI is "allowed" to be, which creates a kind of (heh) no-so-anthropic principle, ex:

A: "Why isn't there more AI in cyberpunk media?"

B: "There's a decent amount already, as characters or tools."

A: "But why didn't those authors address its potential to be even bigger?"

B: "Some did, but that makes stories we don't categorize as cyberpunk."


Agreed, which is why The Culture (series) isn't cyberpunk but The Polity (by Neal Asher) kinda skirts the line, in many ways they are similar except resource inequality still exists on a wide/policy scale in the latter.

Well yeah, that's what "alignment" means...

AIs are in plenty of cyberpunk stories, but your comment did make me think that they are often rather stereotypically “alien entity characters” and not a kind of corporate technology / weapon that is controlled by a specific organization.

Which is a shame, as it seems to me that the overwhelming risk of AI is from the latter scenario, and not as a rogue individual entity.


It is a pretty core part of Cyberpunk the "franchise" though, both tabletop and more recent video game.

I think as well if you look closer, many cyberpunk worlds imply AI through robots, computers with personality etc.


I think you can look at Star Trek as a fairly grounded example of where current LLMs could go: the ship's computer is not autonomous in any way but it does accept fairly vague instructions and you can apparently vibe-code the holodeck.

Im hoping more for red dwarf

I find that more realistic then, because it appears that's the trajectory we are going on with regards to AI, as a tool not a panacea.

AI is one of the core parts of cyberpunk, through androids / humanoid robots. Blade Runner is completely built on the protagonist having to interact with rogue artificial intelligence.

Hyperion has a pretty well-developed view of AGI.

I assume it just becomes one of those things as ubiquitous as Wi-Fi

Deus Ex is an outlier, AI is a core part of that plot

The first Cyberpunk book, Neuromancer, has a plot which revolves around A.I recruiting human agents to forward its plans...

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

Search: