Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're hiring for Starship and Starlink software teams: https://grnh.se/080f65d02us It sounds like you're passionate about your work and that's an important quality. As gorgoiler points out, "Making a difference in the world is what counts." If you'd like to help, consider applying! :)
The application forms are pretty ridiculous with theIr insistence on school/graduation dates (some reqs) and SAT/ACT scores (all). As a very experienced engineer, I can’t accept being judged on (historical) trivia.
SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
131–140 of 391 posts
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#132No one has seemed to have mentioned it yet, but the game changer of Starship will be full reusability of both the first and second stage of the rocket. Falcon 9's reusability of the first stage was a huge step towards making access to space a lot cheaper. If SpaceX can realize full reusability with Starship it will enable things like large scale moon bases, space hotels and mars colonization. They still have a lot of…
> game changer Absolutely, and the quantitative analysis is just stunning. In 2018 all of humanity launched a total of 111 payloads into space (out of 114 attempts). At around 5t per launch, that would be 555 tons. Starship is supposed to have a payload to LEO of > 100 tons. So 5-6 launches would handle all of that, by weight. But SpaceX says their goal is to fly these up to 3 times a day. So let's assume they can do…
Is it even possible both in terms of climate change/overall environmental impact, and in terms of how much methane (fuel) we actually have.
Elon Musk's vision is getting 1 million people to Mars (if I remember correctly) within this century. 100 per starship will require 10000 launches. Distributed over 70 years, that's about 1300 Martian voyages per year.
So approximately 3 per day. Each of those launches, however will require launches of refuelling tanks (is it 6 each?)... So we are talking 19 launches per day just _people_ going to Mars!!!
Sorry, but isn't that completely impossible!??
Not just for the required fuel and environmental impact, but also given how often they just postpone basic launches due to weather.
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Star Trek we just need SpaceX + UBI!
The Expanse also has UBI on earth. With it, most people still lack opportunity and live a rather destitute, powerless life. Seems like a pretty good perdition of our future, really. UBI recipients with no labor of value to offer won't have power to change their government for long. It's unfortunate that the authoritarian future of Star Trek probably wouldn't lead to paradise. Or at least, that's how our culture's vie…
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DC-X still manages to look modern next to it. Had it succeeded, it'd have done something not even SpaceX is doing, which is a fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit craft. I don't think we have the advanced materials for that.
I agree. For a space craft that did it's 150m "hop" in 1992 it was even more impressive (especially considering how much the computers and IMU weighed in that thing!) I'm not convinced though that it ever really to achieve it's SSTO goals and still land it. With on orbit refueling perhaps (as could Starship in a similar scenario). It was also shooting for much lower mass to LEO.
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> game changer Absolutely, and the quantitative analysis is just stunning. In 2018 all of humanity launched a total of 111 payloads into space (out of 114 attempts). At around 5t per launch, that would be 555 tons. Starship is supposed to have a payload to LEO of > 100 tons. So 5-6 launches would handle all of that, by weight. But SpaceX says their goal is to fly these up to 3 times a day. So let's assume they can do…
Indeed these numbers are impressive, but can it even be done? Is it even possible both in terms of climate change/overall environmental impact, and in terms of how much methane (fuel) we actually have. Elon Musk's vision is getting 1 million people to Mars (if I remember correctly) within this century. 100 per starship will require 10000 launches. Distributed over 70 years, that's about 1300 Martian voyages per year.…
The US uses over 20 million barrels of petroleum every single day. We have 44,000 airline flights every day.
I think 19 starship flights won’t even move the needle.
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#136Official video: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
Were they incredibly lucky
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#137Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
A country is friendly until it isn't. I understand it's not a requirement imposed by SpaceX, but it also prevents them from getting a lot of applications they wouldn't be able to turn into hires.
> A country is friendly until it isn’t If the US can trust the UK with information on nuclear weapon designs and delivery systems, surely it can handle a few UK citizens working for SpaceX? In the unlikely event that the UK and US had some falling out, the US government could always order SpaceX to lay off UK citizen employees.
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#139Can someone please explain the significance of this milestone for a space-ignorant person like myself? I thought SpaceX does these types of landings all the time. :)
There are three big targets they need to hit:
1. Make Low Earth Orbit (LEO) cheap with a combination of launch cadence and reusability.
2. Reset the rocket equation in LEO by doing in-orbit fuel transfer.
3. Reset the rocket equation at Mars by generating fuel from the environment.
* The reasoning...
(1) A high launch cadence means you can switch from artisanal to mass production. You drastically reduce fixed costs of ground equipment and personnel. Experience translates to increased knowledge, reliability, and safety. You are less prone to schedule slip costs because there are more trains leaving the station.
(1) Reuse lets you get more life out of expensive components. It also helps you hit a higher launch cadence with less manufacturing capacity, further reducing costs.
(2) In orbit propellant transfer lets you start with a full tank again in LEO. It might take four tanker launches to refill one tank, but ultimately you can increase payload to non-LEO destinations by an order of magnitude. Being less mass constrained also makes things simpler and cheaper for payload development.
(3) Propellant production, aka in-situ resource utilization, lets you fully refuel at Mars or the moon. This lets you send non-trivial payloads in the return direction.
* The progress so far...
SpaceX has regular reuse of the 1st stage of their Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. They have begun catching the fairings (nosecone) in giant nets mounted on ships and reusing those too. The 2nd stage is not reused. Doing so is difficult because it's much further downrange and has much larger velocity.
SpaceX has used their progress on reusability to drive down costs and capture a large part of the commercial launch market.
SpaceX is launching Starlink satellites to provide a global, low-latency, high-bandwidth internet access. Existing satellite internet is based on geosynchronous orbit satellites which have high-latency and low-bandwidth. SpaceX hoists 60 Starlink satellites per Falcon 9 launch. There are a couple hundred satellites in orbit already with several thousand planned. Their low orbit means they have a lifetime of just a few years and require regular replacement. If Starlink is a commercial success, then SpaceX will have found the "demand" needed to drive a high launch cadence.
* Why the SN-5 hop matters...
SN-5 is a prototype second stage for the "Starship" rocket. This rocket has both a massive payload capacity and _full_ reuse. In conjunction with Starlink this would solve (1). This prototype is demonstrating progress on the manufacturing process and viability of the design. There is still tons of work to be done.
SpaceX is already planning to do in-orbit propellant transfer using Starship, which then solves (2).
SpaceX has not begun on (3). However, the Mars 2020 rover mission actually has an experiment on board which does propellant production at demonstration-scale. The chemical reactions (sabatier process) are pretty straight forward, but providing sufficient energy and gathering the resources is a massive engineering challenge.
Ultimately, SpaceX has a coherent, achievable vision for reducing space transport costs by multiple orders of magnitudes and has made demonstratable progress towards that vision.
Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much less one’s college admission test scores - how do they signal a “hard working person” especially 20 years down the road?
Why would a person with 20 years of experience want to work for a company with no work-life balance? I prefer investing in Tesla/SpaceX instead of working there, and leave working extra hard to young people who have more energy than me.