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

Starship Update [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#121

Post by etrautmann »

inasio wrote: post #108
panick21_ wrote: post #33

The Raptor 2 engine is just an absurd. The original specs were already kind of insane. But Raptor 2 is an monster. They really pushed already significantly into a second generation design before first flight. Raptor 2 is not just a slight upgrade, its a huge upgrade. If it can actually launch multiple times a day without any refurbishment, it will simply totally break space travel as we have known it. This engine mak…

My theory is that they aim to disrupt Earth travel (airlines). Elon pointed out that the reliability of Starship would exceed that of commercial airplanes, and the fuel costs are not that different than, say, a 747. Fewer moving parts than an airplane, less human costs, order of magnitude faster...

Elon seemed to indicate that it would be stretching to get individual launch costs below $1M. That seems at least 2-3 orders of magnitude out of range for most conventional travel?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#122

Post by CharlesW »

pageandrew wrote: post #31
anonporridge wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who achieve massive success are born into privilege. Being able to spend your time studying and getting exposed to cutting edge developments rather than struggling to just survive is a massive advantage. It's largely a necessary, but not sufficient condition for major success. People that rise from nothing to achieve massive success are the exception that prove the rule.

Yes, if someone is struggling to survive, that will limit their ability to become a world-changing entrepreneur. That said, the average westerner is not struggling to survive, and the average westerner does not end up founding 3 world changing companies and amassing a wealth of $200 billion. Not even the average birthright 1%er achieves that.

> That said, the average westerner is not struggling to survive…

This is an extremely privileged and out-of-touch POV.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#123

Post by penisverse »

inasio wrote: post #108
panick21_ wrote: post #33

The Raptor 2 engine is just an absurd. The original specs were already kind of insane. But Raptor 2 is an monster. They really pushed already significantly into a second generation design before first flight. Raptor 2 is not just a slight upgrade, its a huge upgrade. If it can actually launch multiple times a day without any refurbishment, it will simply totally break space travel as we have known it. This engine mak…

My theory is that they aim to disrupt Earth travel (airlines). Elon pointed out that the reliability of Starship would exceed that of commercial airplanes, and the fuel costs are not that different than, say, a 747. Fewer moving parts than an airplane, less human costs, order of magnitude faster...

Just like robotaxis would disrupt Uber.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#124

Post by ewjt »

chasd00 wrote: post #80
panick21_ wrote: post #33

The Raptor 2 engine is just an absurd. The original specs were already kind of insane. But Raptor 2 is an monster. They really pushed already significantly into a second generation design before first flight. Raptor 2 is not just a slight upgrade, its a huge upgrade. If it can actually launch multiple times a day without any refurbishment, it will simply totally break space travel as we have known it. This engine mak…

I like how small and slender Raptor 2 is compared to Raptor 1. The turbo pump looks even scarier than usual though. It's amazing that something so small is producing 100k HP (the pump turbine).

I thought 100k HP was either too incredible or a typo. Then I looked it up:

“You def don’t want electric pumps on a rocket engine! Raptor turbopumps alone need 100,000 horsepower per engine. That’s not a typo.” —Elon Musk

x 32 engines. Amazing! For comparison, this is an internal combustion engine with 100k HP:

https://www.zmescience.com/science/biggest-most-poweful-engi...

Re: Starship Update [video]

#125

Post by jandrewrogers »

flyt wrote: post #37
pageandrew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if someone is struggling to survive, that will limit their ability to become a world-changing entrepreneur. That said, the average westerner is not struggling to survive, and the average westerner does not end up founding 3 world changing companies and amassing a wealth of $200 billion. Not even the average birthright 1%er achieves that.

Oh, but they are. The average westerner (in the US, at least) is a $400 unexpected bill away from bankruptcy. Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla.

The average American is not an unexpected $400 bill away from bankruptcy. This has been debunked countless times. Per the US government's own detailed statistics (BLS), the median household has $1000 per month leftover after all ordinary expenses. That's literally money available to piss away on whatever after all the basic lifestyle expenses, so it will definitely cover a $400 expense.

Americans have a lot of discretionary income. While there is a part of the population that cannot afford an unexpected $400 expense, that only applies to 10-15% of the population, per Federal Reserve studies.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#127

Post by inasio »

etrautmann wrote: post #121
inasio wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that they aim to disrupt Earth travel (airlines). Elon pointed out that the reliability of Starship would exceed that of commercial airplanes, and the fuel costs are not that different than, say, a 747. Fewer moving parts than an airplane, less human costs, order of magnitude faster...

Elon seemed to indicate that it would be stretching to get individual launch costs below $1M. That seems at least 2-3 orders of magnitude out of range for most conventional travel?

There is no way the cost per trip (airline) is in the $1K - $10K range. The Boeing 787-8 has a fuel capacity of 33,500 gallons. I don't think an intercontinental flight costs significantly less than $1M

Re: Starship Update [video]

#128

Post by mlindner »

etrautmann wrote: post #121
inasio wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that they aim to disrupt Earth travel (airlines). Elon pointed out that the reliability of Starship would exceed that of commercial airplanes, and the fuel costs are not that different than, say, a 747. Fewer moving parts than an airplane, less human costs, order of magnitude faster...

Elon seemed to indicate that it would be stretching to get individual launch costs below $1M. That seems at least 2-3 orders of magnitude out of range for most conventional travel?

I think their benchmark is a 100% business/first class ride with every seat having business/first class prices. The idea being they can beat that for long distance. Also time is money arguments as well. As most airlines actually make the majority of their money on business/first class seats for long distance international flights, which is used to subsidize the economy seats. This starts to make long distance flights uneconomic for airlines versus Starship.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#129

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

etrautmann wrote: post #121
inasio wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that they aim to disrupt Earth travel (airlines). Elon pointed out that the reliability of Starship would exceed that of commercial airplanes, and the fuel costs are not that different than, say, a 747. Fewer moving parts than an airplane, less human costs, order of magnitude faster...

Elon seemed to indicate that it would be stretching to get individual launch costs below $1M. That seems at least 2-3 orders of magnitude out of range for most conventional travel?

Flying from Los Angeles is $1000 round trip, so $500 one way, which is $250k on a 500 passenger airliner. If Starship can carry 1000 people for $1000k, it would be twice the cost per passenger.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#130

Post by jjulius »

fastball wrote: post #120
jjulius wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The settlement just said that they could call themselves founders. Equally, a settlement could've also been reached that said that everyone involved could call themselves "buttholes". What doesn't change regardless of that settlement is the fact that Musk didn't actually found (or "start" if folk wanna get all nitpicky bEcAuSe SeTtLeMeNt SaYs So) the company, invested a year after it was founded, and didn't become CE…

What is a founder? If I incorporate a company and then bring my friend onboard a day later, is he a founder? Why or why not?

First, there's a difference between bringing someone onboard the day after incorporation and the timeline I mentioned. Second, what are you bringing your friend onboard for? Were you collaborating on this idea with them before you incorporated? Or did you bring them on because you realized you needed more money (eg, Musk)?

Early investor is what he was, along with chairman, then CEO, but it's disingenuous to call him a founder. The settlement you referenced is really just dick swinging.

Post reply on HN