Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

spacex.com

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#121
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, SpaceX hasn't cut costs by an order of magnitude. They've made things significantly cheaper, but the list price for a barebones Falcon 9 is about $50-60m, while an Atlas V is around $100-120m.

Well, they’re targeting launching much more mass than F9 for a much lower cost with Starship (<$10M). So not done yet, but it seems like they have a good shot at it. And if they pull off orbital refueling, then they can take those huge amounts of mass to geo and beyond.

Correct, but that's a forward-looking statement. The comment I was replying to was written in the past-tense.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#123

With all the positive talk on here, I shall present a contrary point of view on this. This is the YouTube channel Common sense skeptic, that seems to be doing a good job if trying to test Musks/SpaceX claims, typically it is not positive at all. It is clear they have an axe to grind with Musk but they seem to doing a very good job of backing up their criticism s. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunY…

There's a difference between discussing legitimate issues versus going on a tirade rants full of misinformation to prove your point. That's what these channels do.

For example one of their videos says that Starship isn't possible because of space radiation. Which is a much discredited idea and has been for years.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#124
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cargo I don't really see how it could have that much on an impact. Using aircraft we can already transport large volumes of items fairly quickly around the world, yet most freight is still transported by sea because it's cheaper. A standard '96" pallet' on aircraft is 317cm x 244cm x 244cm (125" x 96" x 96") and can hold 6,804 kg (15,000lb). Specialised aircraft can carry even more - some aircraft can transport t…

Starship carries 100 metric tons, a C-17 only about 70, but can get there in 90 minutes, which could be critical for the military.

But does that include the load-out time? I'd imaging the process for loading a C-17 and getting it in the air is much quicker than for this Starship.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#125
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A C-17 load that doesn't require a ground stop in a foreign country or a tanker based in another country to refuel that same cargo plane. Advantage indeed.

Realistically this means Orbital DropShip Trooper as a role designation is probably 10-20 years out. Launch a Starship, kick out the drop pod "over" the target and then coast suborbital to landing zone (or go orbital and return to launch site). A one-hour deployment capability anywhere in the world would revolutionise special forces.

Yuri Gagarin technically performed the first “orbital drop” style manoeuvre if you want to get into the semantics. The Soviets were concerned about the efficacy of the landing systems and made the decision (and designed the capsule to facilitate this) have him egress the and parachute to a nearly guaranteed safe landing rather than accept the risk of his death in an accident on landing.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not cheaper than overseas shipping or cargo aircraft, it won't work. It's basic economics.

That doesn't take into account the speed of delivery. There may be some customer out there that doesn't know when they need something delivered, but once they know, they'd be willing to pay an extravagant amount of money to have whatever it is there in 30 minutes. The most immediate thing I can think of is a bomb, which is pretty much exactly that need :) But there may be other use cases with similar required deliver…

Amazon Prime Now, but for shipping cars and anywhere on the planet? :)

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#127
post #69

Squeezing 100 people into this thing for a multi-month journey continues to give me pause. It has smaller internal volume than the ISS, which has never had more than 9 people, and it was considered uncomfortably crowded when that happened.

I think this capacity level is only intended for low earth orbit, maybe lunar missions at most.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#128
post #69

Squeezing 100 people into this thing for a multi-month journey continues to give me pause. It has smaller internal volume than the ISS, which has never had more than 9 people, and it was considered uncomfortably crowded when that happened.

ISS is stuffed with research equipment and made out of much smaller modules which makes their space-optimal layout impossible.

Starship has 825 m3 habitable volume vs 9.3m3 for the Dragon Crew, which carries 4 people. That's 3.5x more volume per person. Yes it is a 6-month flight vs 6-day flight (tops), but i believe the volume is good enough.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar giggle reading about the "rideshare opportunities" > This large deployable envelope allows for the design of novel payloads, rideshare opportunities and entire constellations of satellites on a single launch. I'm totally looking forward to hailing a Starship in the Uber app. (I actually don't know what they mean by ridesharing)

>looking forward to hailing a Starship in the Uber app Not totally unreasonable, according to another quote: >The cargo version can also be used for rapid point-to-point Earth transport.

Except totally unreasonable :)

Rockets that size cannot be launched anywhere near populated areas, so they'd have to launch from off-shore platforms; outside of Australia, USA and Russia there are no worthwhile destinations that can safely host on-shore rocket launch complexes for that class of rocket.

This poses quite complex logistical challenges that enthusiasts just love to handwave away. But there's even more to it: airspace needs to be closed on both launch and target sites.

Weather will lead to scrubbed flights as rockets have much tighter weather parameters than aeroplanes and are incapable of changing routes mid flight or divert to alternate airfields.

The most ridiculous part, however, is passenger logistics: every astronaut/cosmonaut/taikonaut wears pressure suits during ascend, since otherwise there's no way to breathe in case of a loss of cabin pressure once you're above 20km. Oxygen masks just won't do anymore at such heights. This means passengers would need to wear and familiarise themselves with pressure suits, unless SpaceX can convince the FAA somehow that even fewer failure modes can be mitigated while still being safe for passengers...

Getting onto the rocket is another point that's far from trivial - one doesn't simply walk into Starship and pick a seat. The seats wouldn't be upright, so passengers would need to climb into them and be secured by personell. Not to mention the elevator ride and the long wait during fuelling (remember: SpaceX are the only ones who do "dry-loading", that is they only start fuelling once the passengers are on board).

So your 30 minute short trip from LA to Paris would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch and arrive somewhere off the coast of France 30 minutes later. From there it's another hour for unloading, an hour to get to the coast and another two hours from the coast to Paris.

In total, best-case scenario travel time would be about 9½h - better than the 16h via plane (12h flight + 4h getting to-/from airport plus boarding time), but a far cry from Shotwell's "business meeting in Abu Dhabi in the morning and back in Vancouver for dinner".

The off-shore launch platform idea isn't mine, by the way - the concept was brought forward by SpaceX themselves and presented by Glenn Shotwell who said "the longest part of the ride is be the boat out and back" [1].

I'm highly sceptical of the idea - not because I think it's impossible, which it isn't - but because the logistics, regulatory conditions, and economics behind it just don't make sense. I could be wrong, of course, and stranger things happened, but realistically, the odds are very much against this ever going to happen[+].

[+] using Starship/Super Heavy as envisioned and developed today

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA&feature=youtu.be...

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#130
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 people was for the 12m diameter ITS version - Starship is 9m diameter and the internal volume is more like ISS sized. Still amazeballs though!

The just released "user guide" says 100 people.

Where is the just-released version? (The one linked in the submission is the original one from March)
Post reply on HN