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

A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#71

Post by mensetmanusman »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #66
pi-e-sigma wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think an airplane doesn't need lift when in a level flight? :) Thanks to the atmosphere an airplane doesn't need to carry its own oxidizer, either. I'll leave to you to check how much oxidizer a Falcon rocket needs to carry for every ton of fuel.

We don't have to wait long to prove you wrong. Starship using just ~1200t of Methane and 150t of payload capacity will fly East (the long way) from Texas to Hawaii in 90 minutes. That's 8x as much payload 3x as far as a 787 can do with its 100t of fuel.

1.5 hour trips to Hawaii from the US would be crazy fun.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#72

Post by Retric »

blkhawk wrote: post #54
sitkack wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my ideal universe, we have a JWST assembly line.

...in orbit. Imagine what a device could do you can just take a wrench to if it breaks. and how much cheaper you could build that.

Not so much.

It was a huge publicity boost for NASA, but not actually an efficient use of resources in terms of % shuttle missions * total cost of the shuttle program. That’s arguably unfair because of the sunk cost issue and how the budget was setup, but manned missions are inherently expensive and even more so if you’re trying to match arbitrary orbits.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#73

Post by contrarian1234 »

“then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains“

Except the frontier had fertile lands and vast potential. It was not a cold barren emptiness. You could also make access to Antarctica cheap and affordable at scale. It wouldn't suddenly make it economically sensible to go there

I'm skeptical there is a huge amount of pent up demand that is just itching for lower launch costs. It's just a bunch of telescopes looking up and look down at every possible wavelength and then a bunch of telecommunications equipment.. There are some serious diminishing returns at play here

Tourism.. more telecommunications (ex: starlink).. what else is there to do up there? I don't see it being a huge market. Definitely not enough to fund a colony on Mars or anything like that

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#74

Post by jessriedel »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #73

“then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains“ Except the frontier had fertile lands and vast potential. It was not a cold barren emptiness. You could also make access to Antarctica cheap and affordable at scale. It wouldn't suddenly make it economically sensible to go there I'm skeptical there is a huge amount of pent up demand that is just itching for lower…

The issue you're point out is real, but keep in mind the global tourism industry is ~$8 trillion, out of a total world GDP of $100 trillion. $1T per year on space tourism is possible.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#75

Post by bryanlarsen »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #71
bryanlarsen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to wait long to prove you wrong. Starship using just ~1200t of Methane and 150t of payload capacity will fly East (the long way) from Texas to Hawaii in 90 minutes. That's 8x as much payload 3x as far as a 787 can do with its 100t of fuel.

1.5 hour trips to Hawaii from the US would be crazy fun.

That's 1.5 hours going the long way around. It'd be under 30 going west rather than east.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#76

Post by theultdev »

sitkack wrote: post #46
looofooo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would another James Webb Telescope would have cost? Far far less then the first. Sure it is costly to destroy a prototype, but not as much as you think.

In my ideal universe, we have a JWST assembly line.

I mean, there's no reason a Starship can't be turned into a space telescope, and it's pretty much an assembly line rocket.

Also no reason why it can't be an ISS, and no reason you couldn't link multiple together.

Pretty useful to have a reusable grain silo you can launch and land.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#77

Post by Robotbeat »

cma wrote: post #22
lkbm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are thousands of long-haul flights—and something like 100k flights overall—per day. If we're doing 10k+ rocket launches per day, then that's a huge problem. If we're doing 1 per day, it's a rounding error. This is premature optimization. (Either way, the solution, of course, is a carbon tax to price in the emissions.)

Elon said by 2028 they will be in active passenger service replacing long haul aviation for cheaper than a business class ticket.

When did he say that? That might be when they’re planning a demonstration, but it ain’t gonna be regular airline service then, purely for regulatory reasons if not the fact you’d need like 100,000 Starship launches to prove it’ll be safe enough.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#78

Post by bryanlarsen »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #67
bryanlarsen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gains efficiency compared with an airplane by spending most its trajectory outside of atmosphere with no air resistance.

That's more efficient if most of your trips require you to go 90% of the way around the planet (maybe?). Or for sure if you coast twenty times around the planet. But half the circumference of earth is not that far.

Airliners with extended range tanks are much less efficient than normal airliners, since they both decrease capacity and increase consumption. That's the range where Starship becomes competitive, basically trans-Pacific or further.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#79

Post by adastra22 »

dotnet00 wrote: post #68
promiseofbeans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Astra developing a reusable launch system now?

They're running out of money and can't really get the kind of money needed to continue on the rocket R&D, so they're trying to stick to their satellite components business to stay alive until they can attract funding. Plus, they're kind of at a bad point and time in the market as small launch is not as lucrative as they hoped but moving up to medium lift is a big hurdle. So far, SpaceX is the only 'new space' launch…

Rocket Lab is doing alright.

Re: A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (1993)

#80

Post by tsimionescu »

jessriedel wrote: post #74
contrarian1234 wrote: post #73

“then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains“ Except the frontier had fertile lands and vast potential. It was not a cold barren emptiness. You could also make access to Antarctica cheap and affordable at scale. It wouldn't suddenly make it economically sensible to go there I'm skeptical there is a huge amount of pent up demand that is just itching for lower…

The issue you're point out is real, but keep in mind the global tourism industry is ~$8 trillion, out of a total world GDP of $100 trillion. $1T per year on space tourism is possible.

If you were to limit tourism to those fit enough to be allowed anywhere near a space launch, do you still think you'd reach that number?

Not to mention, space tourism being an eighth of the total tourism market is obviously insane. The total tourism market is gigantic, space tourism would do wonderfully if it it were 0.01% of it (so, 8 billion or so? Probably not enough to warrant an assembly-line approach).

Post reply on HN