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

151–160 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#151

Post by colechristensen »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

"It's gonna be cramped, dangerous, difficult, very hard work. You might die." -- Elon's sales pitch for Mars, in his own words. I wonder if any billionaire (or their children) will be doing the early work. It's an interesting game of "Who values their life the least?" knowing that their sacrifice will make for a better future. Of course, it's not a foregone conclusion that there will be a disaster. But over the cours…

There are plenty of people out there willing to take the risk. They won’t be the poor being forced into it, they’ll all be perfectly aware and willing.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#152

Post by sfblah »

fastball wrote: post #114
sfblah wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say someone argued instead that we should figure out a way to establish a human settlement inside of a volcano, or at the bottom of the deep ocean. Couldn't you make all the arguments you just made in favor of doing that as well? What makes Mars any different? Why is this specific Quixotic activity more valid than the ones I just mentioned?

Who do you know that is fired up about building a base in a volcano? But gonna have to disagree with GC here and say that I think a self-sustaining Mars base is worth it entirely for having a backup of intelligent life, which the deep ocean base doesn't deliver.

How does Mars help if the sun explodes?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#153

Post by sfblah »

fastball wrote: post #102
sfblah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this line of reasoning, which is why I called the fixation with Mars Quixotic elsewhere in the thread. I was discussing this with some friends. Why not just pick some other totally inhospitable environment and try to live there instead? I mentioned inside a volcano lower in the thread. It seems to me you'd get all the same side-benefits of technological development.

Because if an asteroid destroys earth, your volcano base ain't gonna save life as we know it. Because any such project is going to require herculean effort on the part of many humans, and many humans are interested in colonizing Mars but not so many are interested in colonizing volcanoes. Your question is basically: why do people care about this thing I don't care about and instead care about this thing that neither…

I guess you’ve never read about Xenu. Some people believe volcanoes are pretty important.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#154

Post by colechristensen »

justahuman74 wrote: post #68

The chamber melting on raptor2 is concerning. I hope they find a solution

Not really concerning. When you are designing a rocket engine that’s what it does before you’re done, it melts and explodes. In fact it’s what all rocket engines do past their limits. If that wasn’t the problem you were having, it would be concerning.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#155

Post by fastball »

sfblah wrote: post #152
fastball wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you know that is fired up about building a base in a volcano? But gonna have to disagree with GC here and say that I think a self-sustaining Mars base is worth it entirely for having a backup of intelligent life, which the deep ocean base doesn't deliver.

How does Mars help if the sun explodes?

It doesn't, but different planet is a step better than nothing at all. New solar system can come next ;)

Re: Starship Update [video]

#156

Post by iliketrains »

ewjt wrote: post #124
chasd00 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That is interesting, so could you replace the biggest and most powerful internal combustion engine in the world that weighs 2,300 tons by [whatever powers] turbopumps from a raptor engine and get the same power output? Where is the catch? Less fuel efficient? Less torque?

Edit: What I meant to ask was: Can one use "whatever is powering the turbopumps and delivering the 100k HP" to power say a ship propeller, instead of that 2.3k ton internal combustion engine. Like, make some variant of raptor engine that delivers this power to a shaft.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#157

Post by proggy »

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...

Concerns about cost per flight aside, how would one go about locating spaceports near enough to urban centers for this concept to be viable? If a fully fueled airliner crashes in an urban area, it’s devastating. Now consider a fully fueled rocket — would the crash be an order of of magnitude worse?

Perhaps I still have the “rockets are inherently dangerous, mitigate bad outcomes by isolating them” mentality. Maybe designs will get the the point where the likelihood of a bad outcome is so remote that it would make sense to locate a spaceport in the same way one locates an airport. Or maybe the spaceport could be way out there and just connected to the urban center with high speed ground transportation. Either way, if spaceports become commercially viable, it’s an interesting thing to consider from an urban planning perspective.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#158

Post by HWR_14 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #109
sfblah wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I didn't realize we weren't allowed to discuss the point of the presentation.

I’m unsure there’s much to discuss in that specific regard? If you believe in cheap heavy lift and humans colonizing Mars, you agree this project has merit (and the costs and human effort involved reasonable). If you don’t, you see this project as superfluous and wasteful. Is that interpretation inaccurate? It’s somewhat, but not entirely, binary. From the presentation, development costs will be 5-10% of the Saturn V…

What if I believe in government run Mars colonies, but don't believe in private ones like one run as Musk's empire? Am I not allowed a nuanced opinion?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#159

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #5

"It's gonna be cramped, dangerous, difficult, very hard work. You might die." -- Elon's sales pitch for Mars, in his own words. I wonder if any billionaire (or their children) will be doing the early work. It's an interesting game of "Who values their life the least?" knowing that their sacrifice will make for a better future. Of course, it's not a foregone conclusion that there will be a disaster. But over the cours…

> "Who values their life the least?" knowing that their sacrifice will make for a better future.

I think the pioneers will go there for a sense of adventure, not for a monetary reward or out of some sense of "sacrifice for the future". There will be enough people who want to go that you can select a great crew from that group, and there is no reason to send people who don't want to or have to be convinced with money.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#160

Post by cookingrobot »

proggy wrote: post #157
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...

Concerns about cost per flight aside, how would one go about locating spaceports near enough to urban centers for this concept to be viable? If a fully fueled airliner crashes in an urban area, it’s devastating. Now consider a fully fueled rocket — would the crash be an order of of magnitude worse? Perhaps I still have the “rockets are inherently dangerous, mitigate bad outcomes by isolating them” mentality. Maybe de…

In the presentation he says one of the main problems is that launches are loud, and so would probably need to be 30mi from anything. The plan is lots of sea based launch & landing platforms.
Post reply on HN