Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask them and see, I guess. There are software positions listed on their page.
So long as you are a US citizen because ITAR
Or a green card holder.
SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
321–330 of 431 posts
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tricking investors isn't exactly a high bar to clear either. But sure, you go on ahead and keep telling yourself that Tesla is worth more than the entire, combined auto industry when they can't even make cars with proper joints and door alignments.
We tend to think investors love to chase clouds. These ideas have existed for a long time, and making them a reality - of course - isn't easy. I tend to believe an investor is looking at how good a company can sell the idea to consumers, even if the tech isn't there yet. The company tricks the consumer - not the investor. People buy the half-finished tech, the company appreciates in value, and the investor very likel…
>There are stupid investors out there, but they won't be investors for long.
Softbank seemingly hasn't ran out of money, despite making about the worst investments anyone can have done. The people who don't last long are you or I, people who can put 10k max. The large investors have more money than sense, and can afford to do so.
> The company tricks the consumer - not the investor.
If I give you the money to commit a crime, I am partly responsible for the crime. I don't know why, in your mind, investors should be treated differently, aside from hoping that you'll one day be the one that invests into a company and make loads of money tricking people.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#323Earlier 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
Nobody seems to think about space stations. You could launch much bigger modules with Starship, and many more of them, so you could create a much larger space station for a cheaper price.
It makes way more sense to launch the whole space station in one piece. ISS is how it is because they couldn't.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody seems to think about space stations. You could launch much bigger modules with Starship, and many more of them, so you could create a much larger space station for a cheaper price.
Instead we are intent on crashing the space station into the ocean.
Without the space shuttle, ISS has lost its reason to exist. Without ISS, the shuttle would have had no reason to exist.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#325If 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.
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 engine was extensively scanned recently (https://www.3dsystems.com/learning-center/case-studies/reign...), so plans of what was actually built exist. If we don’t have plans for the rest, we could use that technique on the other parts.
That doesn’t mean we can build a 100% copy, though. Apparently, some of the welding requires techniques that have been replaced by better methods, and welders who can replicate the original do not exist. I guess that’s solvable by using robots, but if, e.g., 3D printing or even glueing works better, and the goal would be to get a rocket that size again, why bother?
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that business insider (a much discredited tabloid) puts it in an article doesn't make it true either. Falcon 9 is MUCH cheaper than launching on Space Shuttle ever was. Your article is from 5 years ago btw.
Does the federal government pay the same rates we commercial third-parties from abroad get to go to launch? To my understanding several times the federal government has special requests that can and will drive the launch cost upwards for many (if not all) launch providers.
> Does the federal government pay the same rates we commercial third-parties from abroad get to go to launch?
Every launch contract is bespoke and the customers can request additional (sometimes significant) amounts of documentation of part providence and the rest. The US government often requests significantly extra documentation so it increases costs quite a bit.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#327If 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.
> I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space.
That would probably kill you. Better keep a safe distance of at least 20 miles.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#328Earlier 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…
Last I heard, reusable F9 launches cost SpaceX ~$30M. The goal is for Starship launches to cost about $2M, for ~5x the payload mass. Starship is also necessary for Starlink launches to be economical for the full constellation deployment.
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody seems to think about space stations. You could launch much bigger modules with Starship, and many more of them, so you could create a much larger space station for a cheaper price.
It makes way more sense to launch the whole space station in one piece. ISS is how it is because they couldn't .
But why not build an even bigger space station by combining payloads from multiple launches?
Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody seems to think about space stations. You could launch much bigger modules with Starship, and many more of them, so you could create a much larger space station for a cheaper price.
Instead we are intent on crashing the space station into the ocean.
The ISS orbit naturally decays without regular boosts due to atmospheric drag. I'm hopeful that Starship is fully operational by the time the ISS reaches EOL, maybe a few Starship launches would have enough delta-V to push the ISS up into a graveyard orbit.