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

SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 391 posts

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#281

Post by jessriedel »

h3rsko wrote: post #274
tjtrapp wrote: post #63

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! :)

My dream is to work for spaceX, but I'm NY. Do you his have remote teams or a NY office?

Hopefully tjtrapp can give you more details, but I have a friend who joined SpaceX as a software developer and they are fully remote if they want to be for the foreseeable future.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#282

Post by jdm2212 »

bluGill wrote: post #235
sabujp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future of space as presented in shows like the Expanse. controlled by trillionaires and their companies and powerful people in governments all killing each other over space rocks. We're a long way from Star Trek, that's going to take a more fundamental advance not at all related to technology.

Many of the colonies that make up the US and Canada were at one time controlled by the rich elite of the time. A few hundred years and they rebel to the point nobody even remembers them.

That's actually the backstory of The Expanse. Earth colonized Mars, Mars eventually rebelled, and the resulting Mars-Earth competition to colonize the rest of the solar system drives much of the story.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#283

Post by NikolaeVarius »

jcun4128 wrote: post #275
nkoren wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Falcon Heavy uses 27 engines and has a perfect track record ,so they've got some credibility here.

Yeah looks like 3 for 3 so far. It seems like a big number... as opposed to just 5 (Saturn V). What is the rationale for more smaller engines(other than offset/greater forces/new R&D)?

Losing one means less affect on the overall mission

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#284

Post by dmix »

xiphias2 wrote: post #108
pinewurst wrote: post #95

Earlier 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.

Plenty of mega-corps are full of people who phone-it-in every day, you don't have to work demanding jobs.

I personally love working hard, which is why I only work with startups, which tend to have a higher personal ROI and more meritocracy oriented.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#285

Post by koalala »

jcun4128 wrote: post #275
nkoren wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Falcon Heavy uses 27 engines and has a perfect track record ,so they've got some credibility here.

Yeah looks like 3 for 3 so far. It seems like a big number... as opposed to just 5 (Saturn V). What is the rationale for more smaller engines(other than offset/greater forces/new R&D)?

i suppose 2 could blow up, no problem :)

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#286

Post by rbanffy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #272
rbanffy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structural weight is mostly a function of the surface area and fuel capacity and payload are a function of the volume. If you make the rocket bigger, it's payload mass fraction increases.

> Structural weight is mostly a function of the surface area and fuel capacity and payload are a function of the volume. Agree with this. > If you make the rocket bigger, it's payload mass fraction increases. Don't agree with this. The way I see it, as a rocket gets bigger, and stays in one piece , its payload mass fraction decreases . The inability to jettison heavy engines and structural components means those thin…

If you look at it, chilling the fuel and oxydizer is kind of increasing the fuel capacity without adding structural weight.

I need to check my math to be sure of how much you can scale that way, but that's one of the reasons Starship is such a BFR.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#287

Post by rbanffy »

garmaine wrote: post #166
iso947 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory starship will have the delta v to get to LEO and back in a single stage, but the payload would be so small it wouldn’t be worthwhile.

Incorrect, it couldn’t get back. The landing fuel and reentry structures would make it weigh too much. But as a demo they have considered a one-way orbital SSTO trip that’ll burn up on reentry.

A suborbital cross globe flight would also be quite fun, but they'd need to build a landing/launching pad and refueling station.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#288

Post by pfdietz »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #224
shireboy wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve often said the same thing. South Pole and underwater cities would be easier than mars or even moon colony. As much as I want the later to happen- I think 1 million people on Mars or Moon will require something that makes them more appealing than even the worst Earth locations. That has to be something pretty drastic. Elon says motivation will be “it’d be cool”. I don’t think that is enough motivation. Still, I’d…

Africa was in Europe's back yard yet when they got the opportunity they colonized the Americas. Colonizing a formerly unexplored place where nobody has yet laid claim has a lot of appeal (and this time we (probably) don't have to kill/displace the natives to do it).

Europeans were kept out of Africa by disease.

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#289

Post by nine_k »

jcun4128 wrote: post #277
nine_k wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the N1 design [1] will finally be done right. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Block_A_first_stag...

The Raptor engines are more advanced than those NK-31's right? I mean by newer manufacturing but I remember seeing something about these Russian engines that were closed off in some factory somewhere/later(years) found and they were supposedly still more advanced/powerful(efficient?) than modern rockets.

You likely meant his engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180

It wasn't used in the Soviet lunar program; these are remnants of the Soviet Space Shuttle-like program (specifically the Energia rocket that lifted the Buran space plane).

Re: SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]

#290

Post by lfuller »

credit_guy wrote: post #250
joakleaf wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Emissions calculation for Starship: - each starship burns 4600 tons of methalox fuel - the mixture ratio of the propellent is 78% O2 and 22% CH4 [1] - that means that each 100 tons of methalox results in 53.6 tons of CO2 and 2.5 tons of CH4 - generally in the climate science it is accepted that one ton of CH4 is equivalent to 25 tons of CO2 - overall, each 100 tons of propellent will produce 116 tons of CO2-equivalen…

This doesn’t take into account that the methane used in fuelling can be extracted from the atmosphere and that much of the fuel / oxidizer mixture actually is removed from Earth entirely.
Post reply on HN