Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starship Prototype Unveiled

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 342 posts

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#301

Post by computerex »

imron wrote: post #156
computerex wrote: post #80

I just want to point out that SpaceX has not yet successfully put a human in LEO. The moon seems well beyond their technical capabilites at the moment and Mars seems like a fools dream at this point in time.

> I just want to point out that SpaceX has not yet successfully put a human in LEO 5 years ago, you could have said the same about SpaceX and reusable rockets, and look where they are now.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. All I am saying is that I think they should first demonstrate LEO capability if they want to be taken seriously about putting 100 people on the moon or mars.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#302

Post by computerex »

wongarsu wrote: post #158
computerex wrote: post #80

I just want to point out that SpaceX has not yet successfully put a human in LEO. The moon seems well beyond their technical capabilites at the moment and Mars seems like a fools dream at this point in time.

Getting anything, including humans, to LEO is the hard part though. Once they have brought crew to the ISS and have demonstrated a spaceship flying to the moon, landing and returning to earth they will have solved most of the challenges of bringing humans to the moon. And they make good progress on both fronts.

I disagree. Going to LEO vs going to the moon vs going to Mars each pose a unique set of challenges. Manned flights to the moon for instance is many times harder to achieve than putting someone in LEO. U.S, China and Russia have all achieved manned flights to LEO for decades whereas only the U.S was successfully able to put someone on the moon.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#303

Post by simonh »

hwillis wrote: post #24
martythemaniak wrote: post #21

That was a very dense an informative presentation last night, but I think the main take away is that rapid reusability is a game changer. In fact, game-changer is probably an understatement, basically every intuition and rule-of-thumb we have about space launches and travel will have to be rethought. And this will be true even of SpaceX falls well short of meeting their stated targets (2020 orbit, 150t capability, mu…

SpaceX is completely changing the opportunities of getting to space. The reduction in price has been nuts. According to NASA the space shuttle was ~$450 million per launch, or $16,364 per kg to LEO. The Delta 4 Heavy is $12,156 per kg. For some launches it's even higher- the Air Force paid $15,109 per kg for four launches. The Falcon 9 is $62 million, or $2,719 per kg to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is $2,351 per kg when ex…

I've seen some say this will put the trad space companies, Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, etc out of business.

It's going to hand them the biggest bonanza they have ever seen. All that launch capacity Starship brings online will have to be used to launch stuff, and these guys are going to be building the stuff. They're not just rocket manufacturers, but have huge satellite manufacturing arms. If I had the money, I'd be investing in space technology stocks like crazy right now.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#304

Post by socialdemocrat »

chriselles wrote: post #196

I’d be interested to learn if advances in digital computing/controlling potentially solve most of the problems that were seemingly unsolvable in the Soviet era N1 rocket failures. I’m assuming the inability to control and harmonise 30 rocket engines on the N1 first stage for pitch/yaw contributed significantly to the N1 failures and cancellation. Will digital computing/control advances control for that and the 42 roc…

Falcon Heavy managed 27 rocket engines just fine, so the N1 problems has been solved. In fact I don’t think multiple rocket engines ever was a problem with the N1. Its problems were quite different.

SpaceX is able to shut down failing engines quickly, as has been demonstrated so multiple engines don’t present added risk.

Vibrations from multiple engines is something they are able to model much easier with computer simulations today.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#305

Post by jabl »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #278
walrus01 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and given how long it took to turn the Shuttle around one could argue it doesn't really count as "reusable" in sense SpaceX is aiming for. Not just the time but the cost, if you take the figure of how much the space shuttle program cost, and divide it by total number of flights (including the two lethal ones), it cost somewhere between $900 million to $1.1bn every time the thing launched. It was very far from the e…

Indeed, the space shuttle was so expensive it burned up much of the rest of NASAs budget-- keeping that disastrous, failed program running is why NASA doesn't have manned spaceflight capability at the moment.

Well, from an outsider perspective, the SLS/Orion program is pure pork. Nobody holding the purse strings cares whether the thing ever flies. Heck, probably they even prefer if it never flies (always just a few years and tens of billions in the future); a failed launch is potentially politically catastrophic.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#306

Post by socialdemocrat »

navigatesol wrote: post #147
narrator wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this illustrates what someone who actually understands the engineering being in charge of a company can really do to revolutionize a field. If a non-engineer is in charge of a space company, they'll look at the popular science articles and assume that single launch is the only way to do things. They'll also assume that we just need to get the material science right to be able to do space elevators. They'll as…

I love how we've suddenly decided that all the solid engineering done in the space industry, for decades, was done by fools reading pop science. But now a "real engineer" is showing us the way. SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of giants.

You didn’t even read his argument. He isn’t talking about the golden years of NASA when real engineers like Werner von Braun made shit happen. It is about the time after.

Sure there are lots of brilliant engineers in the years after but these guys were not making top level decisions.

You can see that in all industries. MBA guys have kicked out engineers as leaders. I have seen the same while working in software engineering. Business thinking dominate over engineer thinking. You end up with these really short sighted decisions and there is an inflated fear of trying anything new.

Look at the SLS disaster: stuck on coupling together a whole bunch of old tech to the point that it creates its own complexity.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#307

Post by bufferoverflow »

0wis wrote: post #254
hinkley wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the Russians use a lot of steel in their Space Age era rockets? It always seemed to me like we went too high tech too quickly and the Soviets were practical to a fault, and the truth should be something in between.

I couldn’t agree more. Soyouz is simple. Soyouz is reliable. Soyouz is cheap. Soyouz is in use for 50+ Soyouz is still there while NASA has no launcher available nowadays, despite decades of « on the edge innovation ». Soyouz is great. Its an engineering marvel. And Starship is likely to become even greater.

> Soyouz is cheap.

Only in relation to other single-use rockets.

SpaceX has been eating russian's (and other countries') space business for years now, simply because they are cheaper.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#308

Post by drchewbacca »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #307
0wis wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. Soyouz is simple. Soyouz is reliable. Soyouz is cheap. Soyouz is in use for 50+ Soyouz is still there while NASA has no launcher available nowadays, despite decades of « on the edge innovation ». Soyouz is great. Its an engineering marvel. And Starship is likely to become even greater.

> Soyouz is cheap. Only in relation to other single-use rockets. SpaceX has been eating russian's (and other countries') space business for years now, simply because they are cheaper.

I find it odd that Russia hasn't fought back and tried to do a reusable program of it's own. Putin talks big talk about wanting to develop high tech industries so why just give up on space?

His nuclear cruise missile program is so lame by comparison.

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#309

Post by emilecantin »

KiwiJohnno wrote: post #151
emilecantin wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't he an astronomer / astrophysicist? You must be talking about another Scott Manley.

Nope, same guy. Scott Manley has a degree in astrophysics (I think) and worked as an astronomer for a while, then got a job coding at Apple. He's a smart guy

Yeah, I looked him up on Wikipedia, looks like I got the wrong impression from his videos. Smart guy indeed!

Re: Starship Prototype Unveiled

#310

Post by wongarsu »

computerex wrote: post #302
wongarsu wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting anything, including humans, to LEO is the hard part though. Once they have brought crew to the ISS and have demonstrated a spaceship flying to the moon, landing and returning to earth they will have solved most of the challenges of bringing humans to the moon. And they make good progress on both fronts.

I disagree. Going to LEO vs going to the moon vs going to Mars each pose a unique set of challenges. Manned flights to the moon for instance is many times harder to achieve than putting someone in LEO. U.S, China and Russia have all achieved manned flights to LEO for decades whereas only the U.S was successfully able to put someone on the moon.

>only the U.S was successfully able to put someone on the moon

But is that because it's hard to put people on the moon or because only one country tried? (Sure, the USSR tried too, but they stopped trying before succeeding to put a large enough rocket into LEO).

There is a very unique challenge in landing on the moon, and most moon landings still fail. But that can be perfected with unmanned landings, and Space X has the unique advantage of having plenty of experience with powered landings, and not requiring a separate lander.

Post reply on HN