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

281–290 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#281

Post by maccam94 »

Isinlor wrote: post #239
kortex wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but there is no fuel source out in space. Outside of Earth orbit, eg Lagrange points, you need fuel deliveries. On Mars they can make methane with the Sabatier process. So you have: - LEO/MEO - vulnerable to asteroid impact ejecta - GEO/moon/L-points - avoid ejecta, but need regular refueling. If Earth is toast, there goes resupply - Mars - close enough to the sun for solar, able to conceivably bootstrap…

Actually there is fuel in space - water and sunlight. You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from sunlight. In long term, most likely both Hydrolox and Methalox will be in use.

I think the parent comment meant to say there is no propellant in space.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#282

Post by nycdotnet »

Azrael3000 wrote: post #268
hoseja wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chamber is still melting. Hopefully they can figure that one out.

Source? Several raptors have been fired for long duration and even multiple times. If the chambers would melt that should not be possible. Of course RUDs of engines happened but they were the exception and not the norm.

Elon himself said this was one of the major remaining problems in last night’s presentation.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#283

Post by chasd00 »

gpm wrote: post #165
iliketrains wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a totally different problem. Yes it's less efficient, you spent all this energy cooling off all the fuel and oxidizer to cryogenic temperatures before using it. The turbopumps in the raptors are also running very far off from stochiometric fuel mixtures (which is fine in the rocket because they're exhaust is used as fuel for the next stage) - which means if you're just using it for the pump your not actually bur…

> You've also got a bunch of safety issues.

Yeah, plus, there’s no fixing a broken or poorly running turbo pump turbine. It either works or explodes, no inbetween.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#284

Post by xiphias2 »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #231
onion2k wrote: post #222

The numbers on mass to orbit are fascinating. To date humans have sent 15,517 tons of stuff into space. SpaceX wants to be able to send 15,500 per year with a single Starship, and Elon wants a fleet of 10. That's amazing. That really is "we can have a moonbase now" levels of ambition.

It'll be very interesting to see how and if that's going to work out. There will have to be a lot of actual demand for that launch capacity, and it'll have to build up fairly quickly, else SpaceX may not be around anymore when those payloads are ready. I guess lots of companies could do with some zero-g R&D, but actually building a platform to do this, how long will that take? Asteroid mining seems to be a long way f…

The demand for cheap satellite internet that Starship can provide is clear. Just look in another thread about Starlink of people complaining that the demand is not met fast enough.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#285

Post by nickpp »

WalterGR wrote: post #245
nickpp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer to think of The Expanse instead. It seems a much more likely future to me. There are countless dystopic futures (they sell better) we already avoided so I prefer optimism.

they sell better Citation?

My shelves full of years and years of SciFi. Great majority - dystopias. Utopias are rather boring, I guess.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#286

Post by irrational »

giantrobot wrote: post #91
irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic idea is to not have all your eggs in one basket. We are one asteroid strike away from losing all human life on earth. Having 2 habited planets spreads the risk. Obviously having those planets in different solar systems would be even better, but we don’t have the technology for that, yet.

> We are one asteroid strike away from losing all human life on earth. We're one asteroid strike from losing all human life in the solar system even if you had a bunch of people living on Mars. It would take a very long time to get even a single Mars colony self sufficient. Without resources of Earth supporting the colony it would die out the first time the air conditioner broke. Putting people on Mars isn't putting…

By that logic we will never leave Earth. Let’s say it takes 200 years to get a fully self sufficient colony on Mars. If we start now, it could be self-sufficient by around 2222. But, according to your logic, we shouldn’t start since the colony won’t be immediately self-sufficient. Instead we should wait until… until when? Assuming it will always take 200 years to make the colony self-sufficient, do we wait until 2222 to start so that it is self-sufficient by 2422?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#287

Post by virgilp »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #280
virgilp wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal result of the settlement is that Musk can call himself a (co)founder, and so can Straubel & Wright. Even Eberhard agreed to that. You may personally feel he's not entitled to the title, but that's just it, a personal feeling. He's literally legally entitled to have this title. Why contradict people on the internet, and say "actually, Musk is not a founder of Tesla"? If anything, it is (right now) disingenuo…

Legal isn’t some gotcha. He is entitled. But he wasn’t a founder of Tesla. I think pg would agree. He’s made the distinction in the past, and he knows more about startups than pretty much anybody. You can’t onboard a founder; it’s not a personal feeling, and some legal ruling doesn’t change that.

"he says/ she says". I think pg would disagree. Let's see if he intervenes directly? Otherwise, we can just discard his speculated opinions.

And if we appeal to authority, there's actual evidence that Musk (who knows a lot about startups!) feels he was a founder. So should we believe Musk, until pg says otherwise?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#288

Post by ameister14 »

lamontcg wrote: post #172
jandrewrogers wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discre…

how many people would have a $50,000 expense set their retirement savings back at last a couple years, if not bankrupt them? none of these people are building a rocket company in their lives.

$400 =/= $50000

Also Jeff Bezos was born to a high school attending mom who worked as a secretary and went to night school after she quickly became a single mom - he built a rocket company

Re: Starship Update [video]

#289

Post by chasd00 »

causi wrote: post #274
Gwypaas wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used everywhere, more complex and has a more limited operating parameters though. In the maritime industry it has generally been military or high speed ferries using them. Essentially, if your ship can get away with a larger more mechanically simple engine it is more economical because as long as they stay on the surface you are not paying the fuel price of also lifting the engine. Commercial jets use the same mechan…

Every time I look at jet engine diagrams I get chills thinking about what it must take to make mechanical parts that function with that much precision for that many revolutions under that much heat and pressure.

like many here, I've spent my professional life in software. You can goto walmart, buy a $500 laptop, hook it up to free wifi at a coffee shop and you have access to all the tools you need to build cutting edge software technology. That is not the case in meatspace. Going from an empty space in a factory to a jet engine ready to be installed on a plane blows me away on so many different levels.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#290

Post by panick21_ »

CharlesW wrote: post #119
panick21_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same. That's complete nonsense. Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies. Musk has been supportive of other space companies. SpaceX busted open the establishment in both DoD and NASA so the contracts are fairly competent, and everybody coming in the industry benefits from that. SpaceX just recently lost a contr…

> Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies. I mean, Musk hasn't called Bezos a pedo (yet), but you haven't been paying attention if you believe that. https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-mocks-jeff-bezos-aft...

You mean when Blue did everything they could to prevent SpaceX from gaining a contract. Blue complained to GAO and lost. Then Blue started a propaganda campaign propagating lies about SpaceX and tried to get is bought politicians to force NASA to change, then they sued NASA.

After all of that, with SpaceX never actually doing anything to Blue, all they did was offer a way better option to the government.

Post reply on HN