Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mithaldu | Hacker News Reader

Oooh, so you're simply unaware and your bias prompts you to assume i'm making shit up. Here, let me fix that.

Watch exactly one minute after this timestamp, pay attention to the screen at the right edge of the video, in the middle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&t=30m33s

Drone ship feed static for a while, then smoke on deck clears, no core visible, deck empty. Both go "oh." and after a pause: "we're waiting to hear what happens. [...] we'll let you know as soon as we find out" and "we'll [...] know [...] whether it's standing".

It is clear during all of this that they're looking at the same video feed as is in the background, because the timing of their reactions is exactly in synch.

They saw it didn't land, they found out immediately and didn't let "us" know. Instead they claimed it might be possible it is standing despite seeing the empty deck.

PS: You could've asked instead of engaging in cheer pressure.

View on HN

This was a completely new failure mode for ASDS landings.

Often we see blue sky, then the video feed freezes (“satellite antenna gets shaken too much” is the official reason) then the feed resumes with a booster nonchalantly appearing through the smoke. Or we get a cut, then nothing, then a reveal days or years later about what really happened. Booster missed barge, tried to compensate by tilting st extreme angle, collides with barge. Booster lands, but has too much rotstional momentum, crushes landing leg, tips over a explodes. Booster lands, landing leg fails to lock, booster tips over and explodes. Booster almost lands, runs out of fuel a few metres above the deck, collapses the landing gear and explodes.

Looking through the smoke this time, anyone watching that feed for the first time would have been waiting for either a standing booster or a pile of debris. But we saw neither.

They would then have been advised to cut the commentary and speculation to return to the rest of the mission.

So yes, they were “lying” in that they wanted to talk about what they saw (or didn’t see) but kept talking about the rest of the mission in progress.

I can understand that you want to feel outrage, but in this instance I don’t think there’s any justification at all.

I appreciate you're trying to be logical about this, but it doesn't make sense to me.

If you accept that they saw the same feed as was behind them; if you accept that they knew the connection cutting was the booster coming down; then i see no reason to say "[we'll find out] whether it's standing" AFTER the smoke clears, except to misdirect the stream audience.

Do you have any concrete alternative explanation for that?

I already watched that video last month, and it looked to me like the scene froze as it often does, at that exact point, right before the final part of a landing. Now that I've seen the super-slow-mo version, I can see that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. However, again, I have no idea what the hosts were thinking, and your "liar" theory involves reading their minds.

Or, you know, a bare modicum of common sense.

This is excessively hostile and conspiratorial IMHO. The folks on camera are completely at the mercy of those feeding information to them, and it seems unlikely that there was some master plan to suppress that information or they would have cut the feed completely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com