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

161–170 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#161

Post by jonplackett »

woah wrote: post #56
jonplackett wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said ‘other competitors’ or something like that and I assumed he meant Tesla despite it being at the time of Apple launch - building gigafactories takes a lot more resources than anything Apple has done so far. Word is Apple won’t even manufacture the whole car anyway like Tesla does.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has produced many times more iPhones by weight than Tesla has produced cars

The thing is, how much of that did apple produce VS TSMC + suppliers. I don’t think apple have any manufacturing capability at all. Tesla make a lot of things themselves - well the battery at least.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#162

Post by adwn »

sudosysgen wrote: post #137
valuearb wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still, that is multiple Starships. Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

> Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back.

Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts.

> Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguing about? Starship + Super Heavy will be a much more capable rocket, superior to the Saturn V in almost every way. That doesn't detract from the incredible engineering of the Saturn V, which was developed 55 years earlier, in record time, with slide rules (!), and which first launched 10 years after the first artificial satellite (!!) That is impossible to beat, and there's no need for a pissing contest.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#163

Post by sudosysgen »

simonh wrote: post #160
sudosysgen wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Saturn V would be three people to the moon and back. Starship is 100 people more or less around GTO. Multiple starships are needed to go to Mars. It's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.

If you only care about one way travel then any refuealable vehicle technically has infinite delta v.

People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#165

Post by sudosysgen »

adwn wrote: post #162
sudosysgen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, that is multiple Starships. Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

> Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back. Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts. > Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars. You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguin…

They are two completely different vehicles. One is made for a return mission, the other made is made for a one way mission, while the other is reusable.

That being said, that rocket alone isn't going to be more capable than the Saturn V in moving a payload around. It will be less capable. If you have many rockets then you'll have the capacity to move that payload around as a far as a Saturn V.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#166

Post by adwn »

sudosysgen wrote: post #163
simonh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.

If you only care about one way travel then any refuealable vehicle technically has infinite delta v. People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

> People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

What are you talking about? Starships will be refueled on Mars and will return back to Earth. Why shouldn't they be reusable after their return?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#167

Post by sgt »

_lbaq wrote: post #158
mabbo wrote: post #9

> The fully integrated Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle will be approximately 400 feet tall and 30 feet in diameter. For reference, the Saturn V rocket from the Apollo program was 363 feet tall. It was 33 ft wide at the first stage, while Starship is 30 ft wide all the way to the top. It's just massive. And it's fully reusable. What a game changer.

400 feet = 121.9 meters, 30 feet = 9.1 meters

Feet, not feets.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#168

Post by beaner »

randallsquared wrote: post #132
hourislate wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've walked along the length of the rocket at NASA in Houston. It's massive and to think it took all that power to get that tiny capsule to the moon with a few men. Pretty amazing... The Starship is designed to carry 100 people. SpaceX will be able to send more people to the moon in one mission than all the moon landings ever sent. Wow...

I believe it requires a refuel in orbit to get to the moon. So, two missions, but still super impressive.

Genuine question, how will tankers get into space? If most of the ship's size is already dedicated to fuel that's burnt, that seems to leave little left for fuel payload. I also assume fuel payload would be much heavier than other types of payload, requiring more ship fuel to launch it, further taking up space.

It seems like for every full refill you could provide in space it'd take an additional 3-4 ships just to get it up there?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#169

Post by simonh »

sudosysgen wrote: post #163
simonh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.

If you only care about one way travel then any refuealable vehicle technically has infinite delta v. People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

>If you only care about one way...

I care about actual practical capabilities and achievable mission profiles. What do you are about?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#170

Post by dzhiurgis »

mrlonglong wrote: post #21
colechristensen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site has extensive solar power, I'm not aware of environmental concerns for solar-powered desalination. I would guess that it is driven by a real need for water and a hedge against environmental assessment difficulties.

What are they going to do with all the brine. It's quite toxic and I don't think it's a good idea to dump that back in the sea.

Maybe they can make concrete out of it

https://www.fastcompany.com/90338907/a-new-breakthrough-lowe...

Or they can disperse it atmosphere to fight climate change

https://www.livescience.com/62140-can-salt-stop-climate-chan...

Finally they can serve it with shitload of tequila :)

Post reply on HN