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

Starship is still not understood

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 364 posts

Re: Starship is still not understood

#11

Post by ncallaway »

theshadowknows wrote: post #6

I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…

If we use the same logic, don’t we get a conclusion that we should spend nothing on basic research until we’ve solved world hunger, and every other problem?

I agree that we should invest more into safe drinking water (though lead seems like much more of a problem than catching fire). But I don’t think it would be wise to dedicate 100% of our nation’s resources into the problem.

Some amount of R&D seems like a worthwhile investment, even when other pressing problems exist.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#12

Post by blkhawk »

h2odragon wrote: post #2

I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will. I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up wit…

I don't know - I think the point is that at Starship costs its cheaper and faster to shoot up a tractor to space than to test it in a vacuum chamber. Especially for longer term tests.

NASA devices have to work right every time the first time. That is because they are not getting replaced in a decade if ever if they fail. With a launch cadence measured in days you can just shoot up a new one or 10.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#13

Post by marktangotango »

Spacex is building the transcontinental railroads of the solar system. There is mind boggling upside for them. I'm kinda disappointed Blue Origin seems to have fallen in a rut. I'm sure Musk will be happy to provide transportation for Bezos space colony construction projects!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Tycoon

Edit My point isn't to disparage Bezos, but to highlight the fact that anyone with grand aspirations in orbit/solar system will have to go through Musk and Spacex until a competitor does appear. RE space colonies, I believe the natural sequence of events for space tourism is: sub orbital, oribital, long term orbital (a small space "hotel") culminating in orbital habitat ala O'Neil Cylinders. Cheap kg to orbit enables all of that.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#14

Post by blkhawk »

twic wrote: post #5
h2odragon wrote: post #2

I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will. I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up wit…

I loved this bit: > McMaster-Carr already stocks thousands of parts that will work in mines, on oil rigs, and any number of other horrendously corrosive, warranty voiding environments compared to which the vacuum of space is delightfully benign. Yeah, working underwater means it'll work in space no problem!

I don't think it means that you take the underwater parts and use them in space - it means that it was possible to make it work in adverse environments at cheaper than NASA prices.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#15

Post by ninkendo »

twic wrote: post #3

> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execute the mission on its own. The Artemis programme requires a Gateway because senators decided it would be cool to have a gateway. AFAIK, anyone with actual technical expertise thinks it's stupid. There's a bunch of logic in this piece i just can't follow. Like:…

Is there a name for the rhetorical technique you’re using? When you act as if you’re in an argument with someone who actually agrees with you, simply because they’re making points that you think “everyone knows”? Not everyone is as jaded as you, and some people may actually find it to be interesting reading to hear why our current SLS plans aren’t all that practical.

You see it all the time on HN… “Apple changes course by doing something that isn’t very privacy-centric”, responded to with “but this isn’t a change of course because they’ve only ever cared about their bottom line!”… “Facebook does thing that isn’t good for their users” responded to with “no they didn’t, because these people aren’t the users, but the product!”, etc etc.

It’s this weird agreement-masked-as-contrarianism that I can only imagine comes from too much time spent debating things online, where you feel you must present everything as an argument of some sort.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#16

Post by XorNot »

theshadowknows wrote: post #6

I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…

Money spent on going to space doesn't vanish in an exhaust plume. The money spent building a rocket is paying for the ongoing training, expertise and development of precision machining, software control systems, welding techniques, project management, infrastructure upgrades etc.

Though that's not really the issue anyway: the US's problems aren't caused by a lack of funding, they're caused by a lack of political will and a populace which is in part completely happy with the current state of affairs and votes accordingly. People's townwater isn't flammable because we didn't spend enough money fixing that problem: it's because the government (and voters) are in aggregate, completely happy to let it happen. Money - distinctly - will not buy a solution.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#18

Post by jxidjhdhdhdhfhf »

theshadowknows wrote: post #6

I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…

Are you truly living your life in the way you are suggesting other people should here? Do you, for example, eschew all spending that's remotely luxurious and donate it to people that have way less than you?

My point is, lead by example if you want others to follow.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#19

Post by yeetaccount »

marktangotango wrote: post #13

Spacex is building the transcontinental railroads of the solar system. There is mind boggling upside for them. I'm kinda disappointed Blue Origin seems to have fallen in a rut. I'm sure Musk will be happy to provide transportation for Bezos space colony construction projects! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Tycoon Edit My point isn't to disparage Bezos, but to highlight the fact that anyone with grand aspirati…

Yeah but watching Bezos turn into a household joke is worth it.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#20

Post by fasteddie31003 »

ncallaway wrote: post #8

I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship. The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high. If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentall…

I'm not sure that NASA designs much. JPL designs and builds most of the probes launched by NASA. JPL is an anomaly in the Federal Government where it gets good results. It would be interesting to look into how JPL does so well relative to other agencies and contractors such as Boeing (which is a national embarrassment).
Post reply on HN