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

Starship / Super Heavy

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#121

Post by ampdepolymerase »

cameronh90 wrote: post #79
mulmen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure SpaceX would be interested in your plan to get to space without passing through FAA regulated airspace.

They could launch from outside America. They've already said they plan to launch from floating platforms in the ocean...

There are exactly three other countries with the supply chain, manpower, funding, and infrastructure to build large scale commercial access to space. Not a single one of them are members of NATO. Space X doesn't really have many options.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#122

Post by irrational »

cameronh90 wrote: post #79
mulmen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure SpaceX would be interested in your plan to get to space without passing through FAA regulated airspace.

They could launch from outside America. They've already said they plan to launch from floating platforms in the ocean...

I wonder how many miles they’d have to go offshore to be outside the FAA jurisdiction? 20? 200?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#123

Post by adinb »

londons_explore wrote: post #4

Why the desalination plant? Is there not piped water? Is it just another eco friendly sounding thing to put in the plan? Is it to hedge against newspaper headlines saying how much water spacex is wasting? Desalination has to be more expensive than piped water (both financially and environmentally).

Aquifer in the area is brackish, but huge. San Antonio even has their own Desalination plant to process their water that they get from their aquifer.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#124

Post by neuromanser »

garmaine wrote: post #96
ubertoop wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice use of "factoid". Most people use this world incorrectly.

Probably because most of the world has a different definition.

1 : an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print 2 : a briefly stated and usually trivial fact

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#125

Post by sudosysgen »

andrewguenther wrote: post #118
fnord77 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.

Considering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#126

Post by numpad0 »

kiba wrote: post #78
karmicthreat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess would be it will still have a launch escape system for the passenger variant. So if the belly flop doesn't look right or if it doesn't stick the landing it just ejects the crew.

A launch escape system is not necessarily safer than without one.

In theory you’re right, in reality Space Shuttle.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#127

Post by maccam94 »

dangoldin wrote: post #50

Got lost in a rabbit hole after reading this news. Most incredible thing to me was that due to the reusability the per launch costs may end up being $2M (vs $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars - $1.23 billion in 2019 value for the Saturn V).

Note that the $2M is to launch a fully loaded (100 tons of payload) Starship into low earth orbit (LEO). Launching it further, such as to the Moon or Mars, requires refueling while in-orbit. I've seen estimates from Musk that it would take 6-7 launches of a tanker variant of Starship to deliver enough fuel to fill an empty Starship (it could be stockpiled in an orbital depot ahead of the main payload launch). So the total launch cost might be more like $15M for a fully-loaded ship. Which is still crazy cheap compared to SLS ($2B/launch), and Falcon 9 costs $15M just to get 13 tons into LEO.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#128

Post by adwn »

sudosysgen wrote: post #125
andrewguenther wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

> The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

Saturn V: 3 people to the Moon; Starship: 100 people to Mars (unproven, of course). Mars is a little further than the Moon. Granted, that's with in-orbit refueling.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#129

Post by loceng »

SteveNuts wrote: post #84
thelittleone wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could also do two launches within a single launch window.

Didn't they do this in that movie armageddon? Hopefully space-x doesn't know something we don't.

Pretty sure The Boring Company machines will fit in these rockets..

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#130

Post by valuearb »

sudosysgen wrote: post #125
andrewguenther wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

Nope, cause it didn’t have a second stage they could refuel in orbit, a reusable second stage they could use as a tanker, or a reusable first stage that provides the cadence to do in orbit refueling.

Because of in-orbit refueling each Starship will land over ten times the payload on Mars as each Apollo mission landed on the moon.

Post reply on HN