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

221–230 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#221

Post by DJBunnies »

ggreer wrote: post #149
wongarsu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Without it large rockets like the space shuttle might create more than 200db at lift off, enough to kill someone or to damage the rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_suppression_system

If rocket damage is a concern, why don’t such rockets destroy themselves right after leaving the launchpad? At that point the water suppression is no longer relevant but the sound waves are just as powerful. It can’t just be that the ground reflects sound waves, since that would only be a ≈3dB (2x) increase in sound energy. Rockets with >2x more thrust seem to use the same sound suppression, so rocket damage can’t be…

You are proposing...a self destroying launch vehicle?

Would you ride it?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#222

Post by heavenlyblue »

wolfram74 wrote: post #68
avmich wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, extremely cold. Not particularly dense, methane is about half of water density, oxygen is about 10% more.

Given most buildings are upwards of 90% air by volume, that's still quite dense.

Wanted to argue with you but apparently concrete is only 2.5g/cm3 so not that much different from water.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#223

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#224

Post by m4rtink »

baq wrote: post #212
sneak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the environmental impact delta between a 12km launch and landing and an orbital launch and landing? I can't imagine the difference to the ground environment is that significant.

the noise. 30ish (28?) raptors will make a lot of it. and if it explodes on the pad... 1kt TNT equivalent? that's a tactical nuke.

That would require very good mixing of the fuel and oxidizer before explosion, which is unlikely to happen during a launch failure. IIRC for the N1 falling back on the pad after a few seconds of flight it is estimated that only a fraction of the fuel load was exploded and unburnt kerosene was raining for many minutes.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#226

Post by ben_w »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #209
ben_w wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the European version of Musk/SpaceX attempts a non-rocket based launch system. Whoever eventually surpasses SpaceX almost certainly won’t be doing so by chasing after SpaceX‘s strengths.

> a non-rocket based launch system Do we have any feasible non-rocket options to do on Earth, though? Air-breathing first stage is all I can think of (but it's essentially still a rocket). Skyhooks and space elevators will have to wait for advances in materials science and will require orbital manufacturing capabilities. Launch loops seem to be too complicated either. Mini launch loops / big guns / other constructs t…

> Do we have any feasible non-rocket options to do on Earth, though?

Not yet, no — but a decade ago we didn’t have powered landing and rapid reuse of first stages either. While that observation doesn’t guarantee future tech could (or should) be made, I am an optimist when it comes to tech.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#227

Post by Denvercoder9 »

peter303 wrote: post #178

SpaceX should locate next to Blue Origin in Texas.

Why? Their Texas facility is hundreds of miles inland, not exactly a location you'd want to launch enormous, experimental rockets that tend to explode from.

Also, Blue Origin is just an expensive hobby compared to SpaceX. They're older, but have never flown anything to orbit, compared to the 100+ missions SpaceX has performed.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#228

Post by tailspin2019 »

loceng wrote: post #129
SteveNuts wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

Ha. That's an interesting thought!

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#229

Post by simonh »

ggreer wrote: post #149
wongarsu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Without it large rockets like the space shuttle might create more than 200db at lift off, enough to kill someone or to damage the rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_suppression_system

If rocket damage is a concern, why don’t such rockets destroy themselves right after leaving the launchpad? At that point the water suppression is no longer relevant but the sound waves are just as powerful. It can’t just be that the ground reflects sound waves, since that would only be a ≈3dB (2x) increase in sound energy. Rockets with >2x more thrust seem to use the same sound suppression, so rocket damage can’t be…

Larger rockets use water as part of the overall suppression system yes, but that doesn't make the whole system the same. The size, depth and shape of the flame pit, the rate of water delivery and the design of the spay system, etc will all make a difference.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#230

Post by numpad0 »

m4rtink wrote: post #219
numpad0 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 1963 a LES killed someone Which manned abort in 1963 is that specifically? Why are you trying to skew discussion into some direction? Note: LES stands for Launch Escape System, usually a small solid rocket that activates in case of a failure during ascent to take the manned capsule away from exploding rocket under it, perhaps equivalent to airbags in a car.

IIRC this is the case when Soyuz LES activated on the pad before an unmanned test flight, killing some of the ground crew.

So not in flight. Not relevant.

People gets hurt by airbags all the time trying to service them. That doesn’t tell if it’s worth having them in actual situations they’re designed for, nor whether the situations are worth preparing for.

Post reply on HN