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

171–180 of 431 posts

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

#171

Post by ajnin »

hirundo wrote: post #152

The article doesn't mention using Starship for point-to-point transport on Earth. It would seem to make sense for fast long distance commercial travel, and for high value -- like military -- cargo delivery. I'd guess that such terrestrial applications could swamp the more cosmic ones in scale, just because this is where the money and demand is.

The main problem with that idea is that rockets are incredibly loud and noisy. You couldn't launch anywhere close to population centers, where the transportation needs are, and if you need to take a boat to get to a launch platform far at sea you lose a lot of potential.

Second problem is that it looks awfully like an ICBM. Lots of countries wouldn't like one of these flying in their direction, which would limit the amount of possible routes.

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

#172

Post by yazaddaruvala »

jmyeet wrote: post #139
WalterBright wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes One of the things I'd dearly love to see in lifetime is a return to the ice giants (ie Uranus and Neptune). We've only visited once and it was in the 1980s with the limited tech of Voyager 1 and 2. Think of what we could learn with a Cassini-level mission and Cassini itself is now ~14 years old. But these missions take a long time to develop. We actually have a…

> I do suspect we need to find commercial enterprises to justify the Starship economics and I'm just not sure what that looks like yet.

At $1 MM per launch with 100 t per launch puts Starship roughly at $10 per kg.

Asteroid mining: Will be a huge industry. Especially with growing environmental concerns all around Earth. Waste can basically be disposed of very cheaply into the atmosphere or sun.

Starlink, Kupier, etc constellations: will continually need maintenance. Including similar constellations across the Moon and also Mars.

Entertainment: Assuming 500 kgs per human (because of life support, seats, luggage, food, etc), that is $5000 per ticket to LEO. This is a very reasonable price point for luxury vacations, especially considering an "all inclusive" trip like a cruise or resort. In line with this, a space hotel/casino is very reasonable to get constructed.

> All of the things you've listed here though aren't really commercial enterprises. Or at least they're far from it. They're flagship missions by governments because they're so wildly expensive.

You're using past data to predict the future. Which is typically a good heuristic. However, when it comes to game changing technologies you can no longer use past data to predict future performance. SpaceX will continue to make margins off Starlink and regular F9-like flights. These profits are all going to be reinvested until a Moon and Mars colonies exist and regular trade begins.

Finally, other companies like Relativity Space are creating amazing 3D printers for rockets. These new technologies are only used in a small way in Starship, but could greatly reduce costs for Starship or the next ship. If the 2010s were about F9, and 2020s are about Starship, then the 2030s call for another SpaceX ship that gets even better tech advantages.

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

#173

Post by newsclues »

vimy wrote: post #163
qayxc wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way in hell a huge ICBM would get international overflight rights. The logistics of such system would be hell, too - Concorde only had limited routes due to noise. A rocket of Starship's size is another thing entirely. You'd basically have to launch and land it offshore so the logistics getting to and from the launch site and into the vehicle would kill all benefits. Not to mention the simple things like…

The Pentagon wants to use Starship for military transport. Getting troops anywhere on earth within an hour would be a huge advantage.

I thought there was potential for medivac rockets.

Land near combat and take off to America or Europe for surgery.

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

#174

Post by etcet »

marktangotango wrote: post #86
inglor_cz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will take the space industry a few years to adapt to the new possibilities, yes. But already in the beginning, Starship should be able to deliver several hundred Starlink satellites to their orbits, so it could accelerate deployment of the network quite a lot.

> It will take the space industry a few years to adapt to the new possibilities, yes. There are tons of possibilities; James Web 2 with 10x the diameter, a probe to catch up with Oumaumau, real asteroid prospecting. Oh and orbital hotels. Does anyone know of any concrete projects?

SpaceX has a contract to land people on the moon as part of the Artemis program. Last I checked, their plan includes multiple Starships and orbital refueling. Then there's the dearMoon project, where some artists are planned to be sent around the Moon, because.

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

#175

Post by greedo »

jmyeet wrote: post #158
mlindner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vehicl…

> This is generally (but not always) false. SpaceX has been negotiating a lot of their commercial contracts in a vehicle agnostic fashion. Here's another way of putting that: SpaceX has designed it so F9 and Starship payloads will be interchangeable. That's not quite the same thing. You can't just take an F9 payload and bolt it on top of an Ariane rocket. > Starship is being designed with the intent that it will cann…

What does the crew component have to do with payload launches a la F9? They can work out a lot of the kinks with Starship while still launching satellites.

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

#176

Post by uejfiweun »

What's the best thing I can do to help out with this as a software engineer? Is SpaceX in need of any critical software components? I think this is honestly the coolest thing to happen in my entire lifetime so far, and I would love to be a part of it, but I'm not sure I'd be useful since I'm not a mechanical engineer.

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

#177

Post by SECProto »

WalterBright wrote: post #135
geocrasher wrote: post #14

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.

As I recall, the Soviet moon rocket failed because it had a cluster of engines that they could never get to work together. The Saturn V had a cluster of only 5, and barely were able to get that to work. How did Musk solve this problem?

> How did Musk solve this problem?

SpaceX haven't, yet.

> As I recall, the Soviet moon rocket failed because it had a cluster of engines that they could never get to work together. The Saturn V had a cluster of only 5, and barely were able to get that to work.

N-1 rocket had many troubles with the engines, but it wasn't specifically due to the number of engines: the NK-15 engine couldn't be test fired, vs the Raptor definitely can. You can read more about the four failures here[1].

Similarly, the biggest issues with the F1 engine (powered the first stage of the rocket) was with the injector plates: there was a lot of combustion instability due to uneven mixing in the giant combustion chamber. The Raptor, by virtue of injecting both fuel and oxidizer in gaseous form, will mix better (and it has much smaller combustion chamber anyway)

Having two launch pads (they're starting work on a second tower at the Cape) is also a big help, as they would have backup launch site in case there's an explosion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29#Launch_history

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

#178

Post by Robotbeat »

mlindner wrote: post #148
redindian75 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which book is this? There are so many SpaceX/Musk books, would love to read a good/definitive one

https://www.amazon.com/Liftoff-Desperate-Early-Launched-Spac... The book is titled Liftoff. It's the best SpaceX book there is and is very accurate involving many interviews with early employees. Musk is in the book but he's not featured majorly. It's mostly about all the employees who worked on the early rockets.

Yup. And the biography by Ashlee Vance is also pretty good (I consider it definitive although it’s several years old, now). One nice thing about Liftoff is it's mostly about the other employees, most of whom we haven't heard much from publicly (although people who have followed SpaceX closely will recognize some of the names like Mueller and Shotwell).

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

#179

Post by 14 »

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.

This is a fact a lot of people don’t realize. The Saturn V was 363 feet long. I tell my kids to look at the highest building in town we have it is 12 stories and about 150 feet tall. The rocket was well over double that. That is insane! I would do anything to go back in time to watch that thing launch. Absolutely incredible in size.
Post reply on HN