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

341–350 of 431 posts

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

#341

Post by inglor_cz »

HWR_14 wrote: post #270
XorNot wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the final cost, and the cost of amenities, SpaceX could probably profitably just launch people on orbital holidays. By some numbers I think you're looking at sort of "trip to Disneyland" pricing in terms of expense. There is currently probably an almost infinite market of sending middle class people into space to experience true microgravity and LEO, and if that's viable then you're already setting up a…

$30,000/person for a vacation is definitely out of budget for the middle class. $30,000 for a family of four is also out of budget. Hell, I'm not even sure Disney is a less than a once-in-a-lifetime (if that) for middle class families.

Well, the entire middle class isn't flying to the Moon anytime soon. Not even a meaningful fraction thereof. The logistical constraints are enormous.

But I guess 10 thousand people out of the 8 billion that currently inhabit the Earth would be willing to spend 30 thousand bucks to visit the Moon. Getting all of them there and back would actually mean quite a lot of effort.

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

#342

Post by uxcolumbo »

sjtindell wrote: post #293
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?

I hate framing it this way but your passionate hating has me doing it - do you build rockets? Or cars? What exactly do you do that gives you such certainty in bringing down these people who have already achieved so much? Their "dream big" mentality is sorely lacking in a society full of cynical, dead eyed and uncreative drones focused on nothing but financing their own survival or excesses. Applaud it, don't try to b…

The real problem with Musk is that he seems to be a narcissist and a good hypeman.

His achievements are that he invested in the right companies and then he ousted the original visionaries / founders... and finally claiming he is the founder... see Tesla.

Also a real leader usually gives credit where credit is due. Not once have I seen where Musk has credited his team.

And don't get me started with how he's calling a rescue diver a pedo, because his idea of his rescue submarine was rejected. Fragile ego is a dangerous thing.

He wants to be seen as a real life Tony Stark. It's more about him, not really about moving humanity forward, that's just a side effect.

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

#343

Post by freemint »

kisstheblade wrote: post #276
copperx wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Shotwell a real last name? Seems too appropriate.

Quoted post unavailable.

Solar roof tile shingles are a real technology. And unlike Telsa Solar, which mostly buys it's cells from China, market leaders (in terms of technology) like Meyer-Burgers will present similar products this year. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/07/29/meyer-burger-plans-to... those will be able to be installed by any roofer and are compliant with German safety standards and are much more robust then Tesla Solars models.

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

#344

Post by freemint »

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…

I find that utterly mad why would you combine multiple small launches into a big one?

The tyranny of rocket equation suggests to me that you will have to burn a lot more to lift a lot more things to burn for the payloads that would have been in a different rocket.

I would like to be shown the math that it actually takes less fuel with a bigger rocket.

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

#345

Post by freemint »

tigershark wrote: post #265
snek_case wrote: post #243

Earlier 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.

You can actually repurpose a starship as a space station. ISS is 915 m^2, starship should be around 1100 m^2. Now imagine using several repurposed starship as space station modules ..

Rockets and space station have very different material requirements.

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

#346

Post by throwawaylinux »

kragen wrote: post #22
tablespoon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes, but it's not just SpaceX; nobody is good at building big rocket engines.

I don't know much about it, but I'm interested to know why the space shuttle solid rocket boosters were so much more powerful than the F1 engine. 2 of them produced about 87% of the thrust of the 5 F1 engines on the Saturn V.

I thought combustion chamber instability was the biggest issue with the big engines. Are solid rockets much more stable?

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

#347

Post by BugWatch »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #204
caycep wrote: 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...

Cochrane and Musk have a lot in common. Dr. Zefram Cochrane: Please! Don't tell me it's all thanks to me! I've heard enough about the great Zefram Cochrane! I don't know who writes your history books or where you get your information from, but you people got some pretty funny ideas about me! You all look at me as if I'm some kind of... saint, or visionary or something! Cmdr. William Riker: I don't think you're a sain…

Honestly, I'd consider that an insult to Zefram. I'd rather say that Musk has more in common with agent Smith: "Me, me, me.".

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

#348

Post by freemint »

rurban wrote: post #285
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just wait for the private Starships. Hey they should be cheaper than megayachts." Any space rocket can turn the whitehouse, the Kremlin or 10 Downing street into a crater withing 30 minutes, with minimal chances of air defence to stoping it. If we start handing out starships to random shady conpanies registered in tax heavens, 9/11 will look like a peacefull day in comparison

Submarines also. Today

Sub marines can't turn the Downing Street let alone Washington DC into rubbel. Rockets launched from submarines can. No one but nation states have this capability today.

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

#349

Post by freemint »

qayxc wrote: post #337
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.

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 dr…

> Starship cannot take off without significant support infrastructure, so it'd be a one-way trip.

Well it needs fueling infrastructure but if the mission is designed sich that there is enough fuel left to fly to some air craft carrier protected barge nearby the rocket might not be stuck there

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

#350

Post by ClumsyPilot »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #306
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could not get it working in 5 years, maybe in 10. At that point you are not building, you are reverse engineering and re-engineering

With money and political will they absolutely could build one in 5 years. I'm not sure why people are stuck on this "we just can't accomplish what they did in the good ol' days"

Because they look at how uk or california take 20 years to build a railway or any other infrastructure project and draw conclusions
Post reply on HN