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

261–270 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#261

Post by tenuousemphasis »

doomlaser wrote: post #49
zlsa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already done it[0], and it was a complete success until a propellant pressure issue resulted in lower than needed thrust, and a hard impact on the pad. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwLHlVjRyw

It oriented almost perfectly. I'm truly amazed at what SpaceX has accomplished so far. Just need to stick that landing a few dozen more times. It's quite a reorientation.

It actuallyoriented perfectly, but due to the flip, fuel pressure was lost leading an oxygen rich exhaust eating away the engine (becoming what's known as engine rich exhaust) before it was able to complete the landing burn. They should just have to fix the fuel pressure problem to have a complete success.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#262

Post by valuearb »

vardump wrote: post #140
valuearb wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically Mercury is definitely more inhabitable than Venus.

Due to very thick atmosphere, giant airships should be doable on Venus. You'd get atmospheric radiation shielding, same pressure as on Earth (although obviously unbreathable air), ample sunlight and plenty of materials (=carbon and oxygen) in the form of Venusian atmospheric gasses. Although hydrogen would be hard to come by, the atmospheric concentration is very low. That said, I doubt there's that much hydrogen on…

How do you get home?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#263

Post by valuearb »

sudosysgen wrote: post #165
adwn wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A single SuperHeavy can put a loaded Starship weighing roughly 360,000 total pounds into low earth orbit, SaturnV could only put 310,000 lbs total payload into low earth orbit.

There, is that the comparison you wanted?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#264

Post by hobofan »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #90
flenserboy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it will be fun to see humans on Mars, the really interesting stuff is further out. Where large lifters like this will really shine is in allowing automated mining factories to be sent to various space rocks in order to allow further, larger projects to be built in place. Musk has been piggybacking technologies to fund future projects — I don't see Mars as an endpoint for his vision, and Mars will be a cash sink…

> Mars will be a cash sink instead of a cash generator for some time to come The wildcard for profit here is government. No doubt China and possibly Russia, EU and India will want to race for position when the see America claiming stake here. I could see huge government funds from US and even allied countries coming through to support the development and get the fast claims.

I don't see why any earthly government would want to pour a lot of money into Mars. From what history has shown us the Mars colony will likely declare independence from any earthly government once they are self-sustaining which would void any "claims".

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#265

Post by rozab »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #173
wongarsu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Super Heavy Booster has an order of magnitude more engines than the Starship prototype that did the 12km hop. I don't think Starship can reach orbit without the booster (it can reach space, but not orbital velocity)

Calculations over at NSF made it clear that SN8 had sufficient delta-v on the pad to reach the Karman line, if they hadn't throttled back and turned off engines as it ascended. So SN8 could already have reached space. (With the assumption that the nose could have taken the pressure of going supersonic relatively low.) Similar calculations state that a Starship with full tanks and 6 or 7 engines might just be able to…

I believe it requires about 30 times more energy to reach orbit than to just reach the karman line.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#266

Post by mcv »

ramraj07 wrote: post #80
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.

2001 predicted we'd be permanently living in the moon with orbital space hotels two decades ago, and no one ever thought they were being unreasonable if we kept the same momentum as the 60s, so yes it's sad. But we have to take things for what they are and what spacex is doing is definitely progress.

I grew up in the 1980s. Back then, the year 2000 was a magical year where we'd have flying cars and live on the moon.

I've adjusted my expectations quite a bit due to the lack of mobility progress since then.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#267

Post by samstave »

z3t4 wrote: post #238
iso947 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About that yes, but remember that a fully loaded starship in orbit can land on any solid surface in the solar system and return to earth (except for Venus) Starship’s usable volume is over 100 times that of an Apollo lunar lander.

You could also add 3-4 extra stages and put an even bigger tanker into space. But I guess there will be diminishing returns due to the crushing weight. It would probably be cheaper to make many smaller unmanned vessels and boost them via an electromagnetic rail, then assemble it in orbit.

Why not launch a bunch of larger payload tanker bays, empty, then link them together in orbit and then send Many smaller multiple regular trips to fill it up such that you have an orbital fueling station?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#268

Post by valuearb »

mkl wrote: post #244
childintime wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who bring this up seem to miss that there is likely no practical way out of the Venus clouds. You'd be stuck until some next generation rocket tech comes along. Remember Venus has about 91% of earth mass, so a significant rocket would be needed to get into orbit. Maybe Starship could be a capable single stage LVO transporter, but I have difficulty seeing it floating in the clouds, fully topped up, tethered to…

I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think it would be easier than Mercury. Even getting to Mercury is hard. I think getting off Venus from 50km up wouldn't be too bad. If you've got enough flotation to carry a research station or city or whatever, with water supply, food production, life support, etc., you can carry a fuelled up Starship and Super Heavy (if your base is smaller, use a smaller rocket [1]). Launchin…

A Starship/SuperHeavy combo weighs 11M pounds, that’s going to have to be one super large balloon you are living on.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#269

Post by faeyanpiraat »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #252
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.

Like Apophis in 2068?

"The Sentry Risk Table assessed Apophis as having a 6.7-in-a-million (1-in-150,000) chance of impacting Earth in 2068"

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#270

Post by Beached »

itsoktocry wrote: post #232
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also, Blue Origin is just an expensive hobby compared to SpaceX. Who cares? They are building interesting stuff too. We are in an amazing time for Space tech. Why do Musk fans talk of "supporting the mission" out of one side of their mouth, and denigrate the competition every chance they get out of the other? It happens with Tesla and EVs too. Toxic communities.

I see spacex fans hating blue origin, not the competition. most spacex fans are also huge supporters of rocket lab, orbital sciences, etc. they hate blueorogin because bezos plays more politics then builds rockets, and when there is limited money, people and contracts, it hurts the entire industry.
Post reply on HN