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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 431 posts

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

#111

Post by russellbeattie »

kilroy123 wrote: post #6

If you're ever in the Houston area, I highly recommend going to see NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a full-size replica (?) Saturn V rocket on its side, you can see. You simply can't grasp how big these rockets are until you see it up close. It's like a tall building blasting off into space. They're humongous. I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space.

As you're driving along the 105 near Hawthorne, CA, you can see what looks like a smoke stack rising above some large industrial buildings in the distance. That's the Falcon 9 First Stage standing upright outside the SpaceX factory.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oGKEa5vht2HUNLai6

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

#112

Post by garaetjjte »

jiggawatts wrote: post #38
CamperBob2 wrote: post #10

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.

The design is now thoroughly outdated. It wouldn't be cost-effective to reproduce a Saturn V as-is. The equivalent rocket is the Starship, which clearly can be built. Technologies like 3D printing, new alloys, better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Have a look at the circuitry used on the Saturn V: http://www.righto.com/2020/04/a-circuit-…

>The design is now thoroughly outdated.

Not really, fundamentals doesn't change that much. Starship is not equivalent, it is entirely new, different category.

>better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets.

Saturn V used RP1 and LH2 fuels, both are still widely used. Gas generator cycles are also used in modern engines. You can have smaller computers now but I don't think this would change costs significantly.

Really only thing that changed significantly are manufacturing processes, but that doesn't invalidate the entire design, that you cannot make 1:1 copy doesn't mean you cannot port it to modern manufacturing methods, like this proposal for F-1B: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi...

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

#113

Post by mlindner »

jmyeet wrote: post #81

The real problem for Starship (IMHO) is Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now the most reliable launch vehicle ever created. With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less by now and likely to continue to drop. F9 can deliver ~22t to LEO and smaller payloads to geosynchronous orbit. The payloads F9 can't deliver are quite small. What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch…

> What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch vehicle will dictate the maximum weight and dimensions of the payload. You can't just take a payload designed for one vehicle and put it on another.

This is generally (but not always) false. SpaceX has been negotiating a lot of their commercial contracts in a vehicle agnostic fashion. Namely that SpaceX can pick which vehicle to launch a given payload on. This will allow them, as soon as Starship is flying reliably, to swap Falcon 9 payloads on to Starship. Also payloads that were designed for one rocket have been swaped on to Falcon 9. One example: https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-contract-to-launch-nasa-sm... https://twitter.com/B_Garelick/status/1291029153119178754

> It's likely Starship will launch ISS replacements but is there sufficient demand there for this ambitious launch vehicle? What else will it be used for? That's a bit of an open question.

Starship is being designed with the intent that it will cannibalize all Falcon 9 launches eventually. I don't think it's an open question at all. It's been stated to be the case explicitly in fact.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

amayne wrote: post #107
arcticbull wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contr…

The $445M number doesn't count the total cost of the program, which put each Shuttle launch at ~ $1.5 billion. Average cost of a SpaceX resupply is $152 million. That's the total amount the US government pays per mission. You couldn't send the shuttle up with 10% of the cargo capacity and only pay 10% of the cost. The Shuttle was $1.5 billion whether it was 16,000 kg to the ISS or 2,000 kg. Nor could you just use it…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by terafo »

kklisura wrote: post #42

Starship can deliver 100 t payload to LEO. Does space industry really need that payload requirements? When you look at Falcon Heavy, it can deliver 68 t to LEO, but there was only one launch back in 2019.

The thing is that it can deliver that 100 tons to LEO at a lower cost than a single Falcon 9 launch. You would see fundamental changes in how the industry behaves. Now you have incredible engineering efforts that are put into weight reduction of payloads since the launches are so expensive. That will come to an end, engineers will focus on delivering more value, rather than maniacally lowering weight. And you will see incredible things that come with this. Private space stations, actual production in space, and many things that you couldn't even think of will come to life. All because of the accessible super-heavy rocket. and I hope that SpaceX wouldn't be the only company that has such a rocket. We need New Glenn and as many other rapidly reusable rockets as possible because nobody wants a monopoly in the form of SpaceX controlling the whole market.

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

#116

Post by jmyeet »

Victerius wrote: post #93
jmyeet wrote: post #81

The real problem for Starship (IMHO) is Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now the most reliable launch vehicle ever created. With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less by now and likely to continue to drop. F9 can deliver ~22t to LEO and smaller payloads to geosynchronous orbit. The payloads F9 can't deliver are quite small. What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch…

> $10 per launch You mean $10,000,000.00, not $10.00, right? $10.00 launches would be amazing.

Yes I meant $10m. Sign me up for $10 launches.

Interestingly there are proposed launch systems that, while not being $10, would potentially be under $1000 and transform passenger and freight movement on Earth too. I am of course talking about orbital rings [1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E

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

#118

Post by WalterBright »

jmyeet wrote: post #81

The real problem for Starship (IMHO) is Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now the most reliable launch vehicle ever created. With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less by now and likely to continue to drop. F9 can deliver ~22t to LEO and smaller payloads to geosynchronous orbit. The payloads F9 can't deliver are quite small. What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch…

What wouldn't it be useful for?

1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes

2. a much cheaper Webb telescope

3. build a base on the moon

4. make a mission to Mars possible

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

#119

Post by adolph »

adastra22 wrote: post #44
pacetherace wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Lost records 2. Many companies that help build those rockets have ceased to exists 3. Technology and tooling have changed substantially 4. Standards to deem a rocket flight worthy for human space flight have changed

> Lost records This is actually a myth FYI. No records were ever lost, and you can go see all the original blueprints and relevant memos and technical reports in the archives at Marshall or DC if you want. It's all there. Where the myth comes from, and the kernel of truth underlying it is that the Saturn V was a hand-crafted machine made by experts. NASA and their contractors did their damndest to record every aspect…

Reminds me of the Fogbank story:

In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the past, according to the article. The problem, however, was that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead designs, that previous level of impurity was actually essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final product was just as impure.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-myste...

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

#120

Post by jmyeet »

inevaexisted wrote: post #101
jmyeet wrote: post #81

The real problem for Starship (IMHO) is Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now the most reliable launch vehicle ever created. With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less by now and likely to continue to drop. F9 can deliver ~22t to LEO and smaller payloads to geosynchronous orbit. The payloads F9 can't deliver are quite small. What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch…

They solved this problem with F9 too, with their ride share program. Starship will make it even cheaper to deliver small payloads too (you'll likely have to wait for enough payload to get lined up to make sense financially), however with the need to continuously deploy starlink satelites, they'll probably fill loads as required with them to fill starship up.

You raise a good point: taking multiple payloads could help bridge this gap. But I still believe it'll take quite awhile to match the economics of an F9 launch (assuming that payload is within the launch parameters).

Falcon Heavy is again evidence of this. We're not seeing ride-sharing on FH. We're seeing large (primarily military) payloads that F9 just can't do.

Post reply on HN