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

331–340 of 431 posts

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

#331

Post by ncmncm »

mlindner wrote: post #317
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my gid, do you understand that these rockets carry Millions of liters of fuel? Thats the energy of a small nuclear bomb. Unlike planes, they carry oxidiser and fuel, so they do not burn, they detonate. Minimal safe exclusion zone is measured in square miles! Simpler? The fuel is chilled 2/3 of the way to absolute zero, and the engines are at several thousand degrees. Tiny manufacturing error and everyone dies.

> Unlike planes, they carry oxidiser and fuel, so they do not burn, they detonate. This isn't true. They cause a conflagration. They do not detonate. The fuel and oxidizer are not well mixed.

It can be quite hard to tell the difference, particularly from on board, moreso if you are dead.

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

#332

Post by ncmncm »

newsclues wrote: post #173
vimy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That, anyway, will not happen. Once one has landed somewhere not a spaceport, it will not be launched again without a huge production. More likely the valuable engines will be removed and shipped home, the rest left as so much scrap metal.

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

#333

Post by ncmncm »

maccam94 wrote: post #329
ncmncm wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We hardly have any use for the one we have. The best that could be done is one cheaper and better suited to the few uses we have discovered.

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

#334

Post by alpaca128 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #292
kisstheblade wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? In 5 years ROCKETS will be as safe as airplanes? And as cheap? And possible to fly over cities etc (talking about Shotwells promises here)? You really think this?

*reusable rockets. Rocket launches are associated with very high costs because rockets have historically been one-time use.

Reusable rockets aren't coincidentally many orders of magnitude safer though. They would need to be just to come even with airplanes. It would also involve acceleration forces far beyond anything a normal passenger would accept. I'd be glad to be wrong, but I have yet to see an analysis that actually does the math and doesn't result in something along the lines of "this concept is insane and doomed to fail". Spaceship would probably make a good spaceship. But using it for quick flights between cities is less realistic than airlines reviving the Concorde.

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

#335

Post by qayxc »

tigershark wrote: post #274
qayxc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong." Seems to me as if Starlink without Starship isn't all that great. Also, OneWeb - despite being smaller in scop…

No, OneWeb didn’t do anything remotely comparable. Starlink satellites are currently more than all the human satellites ever launched. Smaller in scope is a euphemism, you are comparing a mere 650 satellites with 42k, 2 orders of magnitude more.

There aren't 42k Starlink satellites in orbit.

It's about 1,500 active satellites versus 600 + ~50 spares - quite comparable.

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

#336

Post by moralestapia »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #248
moralestapia wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fuel costs are not that different than a transatlantic 787 flight [...] LOL, not even in the same order of magnitude ...

A 787 holds 127,000 litres of kerosene and a Falcon 9 holds 175,000 litres of kerosene. That 787 will travel 13,500km on that fuel (1/3 the circumference of the Earth), whereas the Falcon 9 can go all the way around the world on its fuel.

Not all "kerosene" is the same. Jets use Jet Fuel A which is ~$5/gallon while Merlin engines use RP-1 which is ~$100/gallon.

Also, on the latter, you need a similarly sized tank of liquid oxygen that the jet gets for free from the atmosphere.

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

#337

Post by qayxc »

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.

That wouldn't be possible - first, Starship cannot take off without significant support infrastructure, so it'd be a one-way trip.

Additionally, have you seen the hatch on the Lunar Starship? That thing is ~30m above ground and only has a small platform. Loading and unloading that thing would be slow and dangerous compared to simply dropping cargo from a flying aircraft that doesn't even need to touch down or just driving on and off the ramp in case of landed planes.

The concept of rocket transport isn't new either - it has been considered several times and always turned out to be a bad idea.

To see where some of this comes from, look here: [0]

[0] http://www.astronautix.com/i/ithacus.html

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

#338

Post by qayxc »

WalterBright wrote: post #257
qayxc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes The limitation there is capable RTGs, not launch vehicles. > 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either. > 3. build a base on the moon For whom? Launching stuff is one thing, but you'd need to design, build, maintain, and supply such station. If you think the ISS was expensive, a Moon base would dwarf the ISS costs. Ev…

> Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either. Let's all quit at the very first obstacle! Did you know that a lot of things don't fit into a 747, either? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shuttle_Carrier_Aircra... The lunar lander also didn't fit into a Saturn V. Don't tell engineers what they can't do.

> Don't tell engineers what they can't do.

I don't - just a small hint there: Webb fit just fine into an Ariane V fairing...

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

#339

Post by qayxc »

WalterBright wrote: post #252
qayxc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes The limitation there is capable RTGs, not launch vehicles. > 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either. > 3. build a base on the moon For whom? Launching stuff is one thing, but you'd need to design, build, maintain, and supply such station. If you think the ISS was expensive, a Moon base would dwarf the ISS costs. Ev…

A lot of people wondered why Boeing was blowing all this money developing the 747. Who needed an airplane that big? It turned out to be the biggest moneymaker ever for Boeing - and the people who bought them.

And look what happened - the A380, an even bigger plane - was discontinued because it turned out smaller planes are more economical.

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

#340

Post by inglor_cz »

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?

The possibilities are endless, but the supply chains will have to grow in order to utilize them fully, and that will take some time.

IDK how many engineers qualified in designing space-resistant hardware are out there, but I am almost certain that many more will be needed. Space conditions are pretty brutal on components.

Post reply on HN