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

31–40 of 364 posts

Re: Starship is still not understood

#31

Post by sailingparrot »

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 think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does.

For example, NASA could start allocating a small-ish budget (e.g. 50M$) to design a parallel mission to their Artemis-IV mission that is currently scheduled for 2026 (but will slip) and that should deliver the Gateway i-HAB module to Moon's orbit.

While 50M$ (excluding launch costs) for a mission like this would be lunacy today given the constraints on weight imposed by current rockets, with Starship that would be a sizeable budget to design a much bigger and more useful module.

If by some cut-off date (say 2024) Starship still hasn't proven itself, then scrap that mission, proceed with the original one and the wasted 50M$ will be a rounding error in Artemis-IV budget.

If Starship proves itself before then, scrap the original mission and go with the redesigned Artemis-IV based on Starship. Billions of dollars will be saved (SLS launch cost + at least 2 years worth of development), and we will have a Lunar Gateway 10 years ahead of what we would have had otherwise in terms of capabilities.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#32

Post by panick21_ »

nickhalfasleep wrote: post #17

I’d love to know if any Universities or Research organizations are planning big observatories based around launching on Starship. What was once a rare NASA budget item could now be in the reach of many more researchers.

SpaceX is already working on that with a professor from some Californian university.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#33

Post by kitsunesoba »

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…

The problem with waiting for all of humanity’s problems to be solved before doing space things is that humanity’s problems will never all be solved, and thus space things will never happen.

It’s also just not a resources problem. There is ample cash and manpower to make both space and clean drinking water for everybody happen. The real issue is the political will and obstructions to those who have such will. The fix for drinking water specifically is to vote out all who oppose improving public infrastructure.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#35

Post by panick21_ »

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…

> They've got Musk's "laws don't apply" card shielding them, or something, to explain how they've managed to innovate this far and this fast.

People will quite literally use any excuse to not give them Musk credit.

Apparently the reason SpaceX can land rockets and build Starship is that they somehow don't follow the law.

It couldn't possible by the the company is well managed, have great engineers and is lead by a great engineer.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#36

Post by deelowe »

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!

It's a bit naive to assume heavy industry doesn't already have solutions to most of environmental challenges in space. I'm constantly surprised by how dismissive high tech is of dinosaur industries.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#37

Post by dustintrex »

twic wrote: post #7
DennisP wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't need to? The point there is that if legacy aerospace doesn't do it, new players will, and the legacy companies will be left far behind.

Why will they? Where is all this demand coming from?

Even frivolous applications like space tourism are worth billions if you can send people into orbit for $100k instead of $100M.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#38

Post by panick21_ »

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…

Why are you an Hacker News, there are literally people dying right now that you could be saving.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#39

Post by ceejayoz »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #28
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…

NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050. For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M. That's not sensible risk management, that's head in the sand denialism. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...

It's not like they're paying the 2050 launch costs up front.

If Starship succeeds, expect SLS to get quietly relegated after a few token launches.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#40

Post by coldtea »

wokwokwok wrote: post #21
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…

This is a difficult argument to argue with because it doesn’t have any constraints. Instead of doing X why don’t we do any of the Y other things we could do? Surely, at least some subset of Y is more important than X, right? …but, is it? Are we better off, specifically with spending slightly more money on proving people with water, than having weather forecasts that can help thousands of farmer provide better yields…

>Are we better off, specifically with spending slightly more money on proving people with water, than having weather forecasts that can help thousands of farmer provide better yields and grow more food?

And, with the crumbling infrastructure, declining middle class, poverty stricken working class, and so on, how's that worked out for us?

Post reply on HN