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

Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 413 posts

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#381

Post by grecy »

mgiampapa wrote: post #379
grecy wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just looked it up. The first Falcon 9 flight was June 2010. The first Falcon 9 with astronauts was May 2020. 10 years to get human certified.

That was also with a rush order on it due to the Shuttle's retirement.

Good point.

In those 10 years Falcon 9 flew 84 times [1].

So I would think Starship needs to fly roughly a similar number of times before it will be human rated. Even if they launch one a month from now on, it will take ~7 years. So I think we're a while away from NASA certifying Starship for human flight, though I wonder in SpaceX would just put their own people on it regardless.

[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/g32758515/fal...

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#382

Post by 93po »

Shawnj2 wrote: post #336
93po wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JWST would also be incredibly less expensive if it didn't have to do the very complex folding required by smaller rockets

Launching JWST on Starship would still be incredibly expensive because JWST is at the Lagrange point on the other side of the moon and 1 starship needs like 30 other starships to fuel it to get there

How do you explain how the Ariane 5 used for the JWST, with a mass to GTO half that of Starship, was able to position the JWST without 60 launches?

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#383

Post by Shawnj2 »

93po wrote: post #382
Shawnj2 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launching JWST on Starship would still be incredibly expensive because JWST is at the Lagrange point on the other side of the moon and 1 starship needs like 30 other starships to fuel it to get there

How do you explain how the Ariane 5 used for the JWST, with a mass to GTO half that of Starship, was able to position the JWST without 60 launches?

Simple, it’s designed to launch a payload into lunar orbit and starship isn’t. To move something using starship into lunar orbit you need to move an entire starship there while the Ariane 5 is designed to do it in 1 launch at the expense of much less payload capacity and no reusability.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#384

Post by 93po »

birdman3131 wrote: post #319
93po wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JWST would also be incredibly less expensive if it didn't have to do the very complex folding required by smaller rockets

How much larger could we have made it still doing the folding on starship?

I have no idea. Ariane 5 rocket has payload dimensions of 15x50 feet. Starship is 26x56ft. The unfolded mirror is 21 feet across, so if you increased that by 73%, then 36 feet. This is all probably really unfounded assumptions

The benefit of starship here is probably being able to massively reduce the expense and risk of future JWST duplicates that don't need to fold. Also in the launch cost, which was $1 billion for Ariane 5 whereas Starship would be in the tens of millions.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#385

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

bandyaboot wrote: post #332
DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> commercially meaningful payload until they are reliably in orbit, Which then can do without a relight. > and they can't reliably get into orbit until they demonstrate at least one re-light And part of testing deorbit/landing capability includes testing that they can relight the engine. So they could launch the next one with Starlinks (possibly test articles of those as well since no full-size V2 satellites have bee…

They won’t put starship into orbit until they can test relight. They won’t risk, nor would they be allowed to risk putting it up there without a demonstrated ability to bring it back down in a controlled manner.

> They won’t put starship into orbit until they can test relight.

Why can't they test relight? Also, they are already filing paperwork for IFT-4:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=cu...

"Application includes a sub-orbital first stage booster and an orbital second stage"

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#386

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #376
jiggawatts wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone else in this thread pointed out that Starship could get the ISS built in just 3 launches! It originally took dozens. Quantity has a quality all of its own. You should be familiar with this from IT: there’s nothing fundamentally different about the first computer that I’ve ever used to the one I have right now, other than the factor of a million difference in performance!

Starship today can't launch anything. Saying that it can launch the ISS in 3 launches is what Elon Musk says it can do. I don't trust Elon Musk's word for things until I see what someone does with those words. Generally, he is off by a factor of 10-100 on his promises.

> Starship today can't launch anything

Why not? With the capability demonstrated today, they can just as easily tweak the ascent profile to end up in a stable orbit outside the atmosphere. Their trajectory was suborbital on this flight on purpose.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#387

Post by tibbydudeza »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #342
zer0c00ler wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?

I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.

And the Saturn V

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#388

Post by dotancohen »

senectus1 wrote: post #366
dzhiurgis wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are launching 8x more payload vs ~15 reuses of Falcon9

the weights isn't the only upgrade, the SIZE is another very important metric.... They'll be able to get much larger objects up there without having to piece them together up there. Especially important for habitable objects and factory objects.

The current iteration of Starship has a payload bay door fit only for the Starlink satellite.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#389

Post by 4ggr0 »

euroderf wrote: post #295
namaria wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like that here's a protip: search for bossa nova instrumentals on youtube for soothing tropical background music

or soma.fm secret agent radio (lots of bossa nova)

My dad seems to love soma.fm, because he mentions it every time we talk about music :') Guess I have to check it out now.

Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]

#390

Post by baq »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #354
jiggawatts wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did several revolutionary things with starship: Full-flow staged combustion metholox engines. Stainless steel construction. Biggest rocket to have ever flown. Highest thrust at launch of any rocket by a factor of two or so. Live streaming of reentry via a space Internet network. Etc…

Those all sound like incremental technology advances to me that have yet to deliver any real advances in capabilities. Which is nice - don't get me wrong - but not exactly worth rolling out the aircraft carrier for.

Full flow methalox is absolutely revolutionary.
Post reply on HN