SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#371

Post by lupusreal » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 2:50 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #364

lupusreal wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most likely "Ukraine wins" scenario is a frozen conflict (e.g. Korea) in which Ukrainians can feel relatively secure about their future albeit without regaining all of their prewar territory. In this scenario, a nuclear tantrum from Russia seems extremely unlikely. Rather, they would probably cope by claiming they won and the rest of Ukrainian territory was sour grapes anyway. Ukraine actually managing to retake…

That's a different scenario. You're describing an effective stalemate and, in Zehain's opinion, the best possible outcome. If Ukraine were to "win," i.e., take back all their lost territory, Zehain feels they would have the opinion that the Ukrainian thought is that the only way to prevent Russia from regrouping and trying again is to take the fight into Russian territory. This would include logistical hubs like Belg…

Ukraine pushing the front into Russia is a fantasy scenario. Of the realistic scenarios, a frozen conflict has the best outcome for Ukraine; that's their "win" scenario and getting will take quite a lot of determination.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#372

Post by TMWNN » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 3:16 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #370

newzisforsukas wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you can start sending stuff to space for a few dollars per pound, we're not talking about just probes, but rather opening the door to the complete commercialization and exploitation of space. It almost sounds too good to be true or something.

Most of what SpaceX has already achieved has sounded similarly, but costs were so astronomical to begin with that it didn't make any immediate difference to most people. So for instance the Space Shuttle was only retired in 2011. After all was said and done it ended up costing $1.6 billion per launch - about $30,000 per pound of payload. The Falcon Heavy costs about $0.1 billion (in reusable mode) and brought the cos…

>So for instance the Space Shuttle was only retired in 2011. After all was said and done it ended up costing $1.6 billion per launch - about $30,000 per pound of payload. The Falcon Heavy costs about $0.1 billion (in reusable mode) and brought the costs down to less than $700/lb.

Is that an apples-to-apples comparison? Each shuttle launch cost $1.5 billion when including development cost (that is, $200 billion in total spending on the STS program / 135 launches); as your link discusses, the incremental cost per launch was "merely" $450-500 million. The $0.1 billion figure per Falcon Heavy launch is only the incremental cost since we don't know how much Falcon Heavy cost to develop (And how to account for the Falcon 9 development costs that Heavy is heavily based on?). Obviously Falcon 9/Heavy has every potential for launching far more times than the shuttle, further reducing the development cost allocated to each launch (or at least, until Starship gets going I guess). But we ought to be as accurate as possible in comparing Falcon and STS.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#373

Post by bumby » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 3:38 PM UTC

lupusreal wrote: post #371

bumby wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different scenario. You're describing an effective stalemate and, in Zehain's opinion, the best possible outcome. If Ukraine were to "win," i.e., take back all their lost territory, Zehain feels they would have the opinion that the Ukrainian thought is that the only way to prevent Russia from regrouping and trying again is to take the fight into Russian territory. This would include logistical hubs like Belg…

Ukraine pushing the front into Russia is a fantasy scenario. Of the realistic scenarios, a frozen conflict has the best outcome for Ukraine; that's their "win" scenario and getting will take quite a lot of determination.

What makes you think so strongly that it's a fantasy? I'm not sure if you're conflating "Ukrainian forces in Moscow" with what I had actually said. I'm not claiming they push into Moscow. The logistics hubs I mentioned are less than 50 miles from the border; it's not implausible to me that Ukraine strikes them just to prevent them from being a staging post for yet another counterattack. I think a lot of the plausibility also depends on the level of support Ukraine has from Europe and the US.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#374

Post by greedo » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 3:45 PM UTC

panick21_ wrote: post #282

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't hate him, I simply find his views on most (?) topics reprehensible, naive and/or delusional. I think he's doing great harm to his businesses by oversharing them. I particularly despise his pathetic bothsidesing of the war in which fascists are invading and murdering my relatives in my country of birth.

Name any private individual who has done more for the defense of Ukraine then Musk. Suggesting that a civil war will end in a cease fire along battle lines is a very common way for civil wars to end. Even if during those wars both sides absolutely are convinced that they will have total victory.

A civil war. Right. Completely displaying your ignorance of the region's history.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#375

Post by rjmunro » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 4:33 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #225

lupusreal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really shitty thing is they knew early on the O-rings were slipping and partially extruding themselves, which wasn't part of the original design. They shrugged and ignored this, which then opened the door for disaster when the O-rings behaved differently (and still wrong) when cold. If they had pumped the brakes when the initial deviation from the design was discovered, it wouldn't have ended in disaster.

My memory saya that some engineers objected, but they were ignored.

Engineers objected and were ignored for the foam strike as well. What I don't know is how many engineers object, are ignored, and everything goes fine anyway. Maybe these are the only 2 times engineers objected. Maybe they get 100 objections for every launch.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#376

Post by somenameforme » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 4:48 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #372

somenameforme wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what SpaceX has already achieved has sounded similarly, but costs were so astronomical to begin with that it didn't make any immediate difference to most people. So for instance the Space Shuttle was only retired in 2011. After all was said and done it ended up costing $1.6 billion per launch - about $30,000 per pound of payload. The Falcon Heavy costs about $0.1 billion (in reusable mode) and brought the cos…

>So for instance the Space Shuttle was only retired in 2011. After all was said and done it ended up costing $1.6 billion per launch - about $30,000 per pound of payload. The Falcon Heavy costs about $0.1 billion (in reusable mode) and brought the costs down to less than $700/lb. Is that an apples-to-apples comparison? Each shuttle launch cost $1.5 billion when including development cost (that is, $200 billion in tot…

It's all about what the customer pays. In the case of the Space Shuttle the customer also completely paid for the development of the launch system, so it doesn't really make sense to exclude that. It's also fair to include it because it's also included for SpaceX. When we say a Falcon Heavy got launch costs down to below $700/lb, that also includes a enough of a profit margin built in to completely fund their past operations and development, as well as future ones.

SpaceX's 'real' (in the sense you're speaking of) per launch costs are going to be substantially lower than even $700/lb. In the case of Boeing/Lockeed/etc, they didn't have to pay for any of this - as it was all completely taxpayer funded. That should have enabled them to offer prices that would be unbeatable by any company paying for their own operations.

---

To put this another way, imagine Boeing et al operated like SpaceX, or frankly most any "normal" company does. They would need to set their launch prices in a fashion such that they'd be able to recoup their tens of billions of dollars in development costs on the Space Shuttle, and then also add a profit margin on top. It's likely their charged cost per launch would have been even higher than $1.6 billion!

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#377

Post by panick21_ » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #374

panick21_ wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name any private individual who has done more for the defense of Ukraine then Musk. Suggesting that a civil war will end in a cease fire along battle lines is a very common way for civil wars to end. Even if during those wars both sides absolutely are convinced that they will have total victory.

A civil war. Right. Completely displaying your ignorance of the region's history.

The history where for the last 400 years the were part of the same country and share close history for 2000 years and only a tiny amount of time they were fully separated. They speak essentially the same language (often the very same) and use the same national origin story and the Russian Orthodox Church was literally representing people from both sides of the border. There are tons of families and other connections over the boarder as well.

During that time of separation the actual elites of the country treated the boarder between the two countries as essentially meaningless. The same group of oligarch took over in both countries for the most part and treaty the sovereignty and democracy as a joke.

I think its totally fair to call it a civil war. You could call it other things as well that wouldn't be incorrect either.

For historical context, the Austro-Prussian War is often called the German Civil War, or in German 'Deutsche Krieg' or 'Deutsche Bruderkrieg'. And those two countries were no where near as close historically as Russia/Ukraine.

Its more like if England and Scotland fought each other, but they are both Anglican and English people believed they origin of the Angles/Saxons was in the Scottish highlands. After 250 years of British history, calling that a civil war would be totally reasonable.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#378

Post by neverrroot » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:10 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #357

neverrroot wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is number one, you belittle incredible accomplishments across the board. If it’s so easy, why didn’t anyone else do it at this pace/scale? Why doesn’t anyone else do it at their scale today? The hardest thing to achieve is delivering when anyone has access to the same technologies, resources etc. He delivered, the others didn’t. Especially NASA, by comparison. Be fair and give the man the props where the props…

Because NASA could accord to pay one start up. I belittle nothing but landing rockets wasn't a new idea and wasn't seen as impossible. It was an evolutionary step and that's what I acknowledge. But people treat Musk as if he single handedly built a Mars colony.

The sheer volume and rate of successful launches is revolutionary in itself.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#379

Post by khokhol » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:21 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #374

panick21_ wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name any private individual who has done more for the defense of Ukraine then Musk. Suggesting that a civil war will end in a cease fire along battle lines is a very common way for civil wars to end. Even if during those wars both sides absolutely are convinced that they will have total victory.

A civil war. Right. Completely displaying your ignorance of the region's history.

For the last 400 [barely 300 actually] years the were part of the same country

The same Empire, you mean. Are you saying that all empires that ever existed need to be maintained into perpetuity?

They speak essentially the same language

Absolutely not the case. Are Spanish and Portuguese "essentially the same language?"

And use the same national origin story

Nope.

I think its totally fair to call it a civil war.

You really are very misinformed.

After 250 years of British history, calling that a civil war would be totally reasonable.

And if you tried walking into a bar, and telling an Irish person that the whole situation with England has been just a "civil war" and that they really ought to get over this idea of Irish independence -- I think you know what would happen.

Re: SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle

#380

Post by mlsu » Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:54 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #366

mlsu wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck tends to average out over many trials.

Not a particularly good strategy here for a couple reasons: 1) Risk on safety critical operations is not something people tend to want to roll the dice with. 2) The nature of the industry makes each trial pretty expensive. Over decades, the shuttle only had something like 135 launches and the managers still didn't have a good handle on the actual risk.

> the shuttle

Sort of proving the point here, no? There is a reason SpaceX has gone to orbit more times than the Shuttle has. Soon they will have launched more Starship prototypes than the shuttle ever did. And they will be safer, because SpaceX understands why their rockets fail.

Obviously this strategy does not work with humans in the loop. It might have been impossible to do what SpaceX is doing now in the 80s given the advancements in computer control and simulation that have happened since then.