Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

economist.com

61–70 of 431 posts

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#61

The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer size of these machines, is the engines . The Raptor 2 is groundbreaking. And there's 30+ of them between both stages. It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been done.

> The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer size of these machines, is the engines. The Raptor 2 is groundbreaking. And there's 30+ of them between both stages. It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been done. I may be wrong, but isn't the reason there are so many engines on their rockets is because SpaceX isn't good at building big rocket engines?

>I may be wrong, but isn't the reason there are so many engines on their rockets is because SpaceX isn't good at building big rocket engines?

No, that's completely wrong. There are challenges in running a bunch of engines, but it's critical to pull off for reusability. All rocket engines have a strict floor on how low it's possible to throttle them. Even 40-50% is quite hard, and I believe the Raptor is 40% though with the goal of getting somewhat lower. And for old space expendable rockets that was plenty.

But to land a rocket, you necessarily need to be dealing with bringing it down when it's nearly empty. Rockets are mostly fuel by mass, and when that's expended are very light. The thrust necessary to lift a fully fueled rocket up is massively ginormously more then would be needed for its empty weight. So if you light up at full power even for a moment it's going to fly right back up again. You want a low enough minimum thrust/weight ratio (TWR), ideally below 1 (so you can gradually descend/hover), though a rocket can get by with a bit above with a "hover slam approach" approach like the F9 uses. But it can't be that far above. But you can't just throttle a rocket engine down to 1% either. What to do?

The answer is multiple engines. Throttle is limited, but you can always turn an engine off. So if you have 10 engines which each can throttle to 50%, your effective ability to throttle from max thrust is .5/10 or 5%. With 30 engines at 40% would be .4/30 = 1.3%. Very helpful. Also means more potential redundancy for landing.

There are challenges with plumbing, harmonics, control etc which are real, so as always with rockets complex tradeoffs, and big engines have their own issues. Small engines are also easier gimble, another valuable thing for landing, and to mass manufacturer which is a whole extra aspect for SpaceX, Starship is about economics remember. But there are many solid technical reasons for the choice.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weren't shuttle flights $2B each? List price of Falcon launch is <$70MM.

Russian Roscosmos costs $35-48.5M per launch. [1] Shuttle launches were about $450M per launch, with 7 people and 50,000lbs of cargo. Came to about $10,000 per kg, vs SpaceX Falcon 9 at $27,000 [edit] and the Dragon around $9,000. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2

The final seat to space purchased from Roscosmos cost $86M. [1] That's one seat, not the full vehicle.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-hitches-its-final-ride-to...

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#63
post #29

"dirt cheap Starship" kinda reminds me of a backwoods project where all that was needed to achieve spaceflight and warp drive was a drunk James Cromwell and a few wise-cracking Starfleet officers who traveled back in time...

Makes me think of John Varney's Red Thunder, where they use some old tanker rail cars...

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#64
post #25

> Mr Musk’s development philosophy is that “if things are not failing, you aren’t innovating enough.” My boss used to keep saying "move fast and break things!" Then a new guy seriously messed up and almost lost us a valuable client. The boss demanded an explanation. I said the new guy moved fast and broke things. He actually wrote that in the explanation to the client. I haven't heard that phrase from him since.

SpaceX has a really strong distinction between failing during testing and being reliable for clients. Other space players haven't figured this out.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#65

I think Gwynne Shotwell is the rather unsung hero keeping SpaceX running correctly day by day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

The sheer fact she has put up with Elon this long is nothing short of amazing.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#67

The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer size of these machines, is the engines . The Raptor 2 is groundbreaking. And there's 30+ of them between both stages. It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been done.

> The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer size of these machines, is the engines. The Raptor 2 is groundbreaking. And there's 30+ of them between both stages. It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been done. I may be wrong, but isn't the reason there are so many engines on their rockets is because SpaceX isn't good at building big rocket engines?

With more smaller engines, you have a lot more options how to control your flight. You can throttle them down individually, gimbal them etc.

The only downside is that if any of the engines explodes catastrophically, it will take the entire rocket down. This used to be a big problem in the Soviet N-1 lunar rocket, but contemporary technology can mitigate it quite a bit: with enough telemetry and computer power, you can determine that the engine is acting funny before it explodes, and you can switch it off. Losing one engine out of 30 isn't fatal.

Also, with computer modeling, a lot of the engine design and testing process takes place on screen, so many failure modes are debugged early.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#68

Remember folks Elon has a way of, er, overstating. He promised that SpaceX launches cost what, 1% of current launches? So far, they're more expensive than the Space Shuttle it replaced in NASA contracts. Their own numbers say that in the fullness of time they may be 10% cheaper. So far, not so. Space exploration is great, we should do it, and this rocket sounds cool. We should do it even if it is expensive. But "dirt…

>So far, they're more expensive than the Space Shuttle it replaced in NASA contracts do you have a source for this? Wikipedia data in the Launch vehicle estimated payload cost per kg table disagrees with you. By a factor of ~20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...

The space shuttle is a human-rated launch vehicle capable of taking 7 people into orbit at a total cost of $445M per launch, or about $65M per seat. When subcontracted to Russia, the charge was about $85M per person. Crew Dragon costs about $55M per person - which is one place my 10% number comes from.

Cargo flights are different, and you should also look at total program costs from the deal with NASA. The NASA contract [1] was for ~12 launchs, minimum 20T of cargo for $1.6B. That puts the total program cost at $80,000 per kg. The space shuttle program costs were about $60,000 per kg.

But don't take my word for it, here's a quote from a NASA scientist saying their payload cost per pound went up. [2]

  "My cost per pound went up with these rockets," Margasahayam told Tech Insider. "On the shuttle, it would be much less."
The article there cites per-kg costs at $10,000 on the space shuttle vs $27,000 on SpaceX. With the Dragon it came down to about $9,000 per kg, which is again about 10% below the price NASA was paying for the shuttle.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-cargo-price-by...

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#69
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it depressing. Ships aren't built to stay in the harbor, and rockets aren't built to lie on their side rusting. They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors.

For lack of a political will or the technical know how?

Technical know how, mostly. But in expected ways. Machining and engineering skills as they relate to manufacturing are different now.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0

Post reply on HN