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

Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 899 posts

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#151

Post by simiones »

qsi wrote: post #113
cletus wrote: post #52

So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…

The vision is that the cost per unit of mass to orbit will come down massively with Starship, once it's launching like the Falcon. That will open up hitherto unimaginable missions and markets. And customers. It's all about the the cost!

Like? What industry really needs things floating in space that are only constrained by cost to launch? I can see lots of science mission perhaps, but even that seems somewhat limited.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#152

Post by simiones »

mjh2539 wrote: post #66
cletus wrote: post #52

So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…

Eventually it will get cheap enough to where people can be buried on the (shot at the) moon.

I believe that is illegal in every country, putting human remains on foreign bodies.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#153

Post by madaxe_again »

krapp wrote: post #147
madaxe_again wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 10k+ people would all be doing something different if it weren’t for that one guy - so ultimately, yes.

How do you know? It's entirely feasible someone other than Elon Musk could have founded a similar company with similar goals, the same or equivalent competent staff, and had the same success. There is no unique magic sauce that Elon brings to the table here, other than money.

It’s feasible - but nobody did, and nobody has.

I get the dislike - his politics are pretty reprehensible - but it’s hard to argue with the results his businesses generally achieve.

What he brings to the table apart from money is an absolutely bull-headed madcap drive to make the infeasible into reality in the face of a chorus of naysayers, and that, I respect.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#154

Post by mulmen »

gibolt wrote: post #145
namlem wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Falcon 9 second stage doesn't survive reentry and the booster only needs to get through a partial reentry at much slower velocity.

It is not fully reusable. But partial reentry is reentry, something no other rocket had been able to do.

You can’t re-enter if you never leave. If Falcon 9 “survives re-entry” then so do minivans.

Falcon 9 is an impressive and revolutionary vehicle. We don’t need to overstate the capabilities.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#156

Post by me_me_me »

kemotep wrote: post #36

I am one of the people skeptical about Elon’s specific claims of Starships abilities specifically about his Mars ambitions. Today’s test, if the Starship reentry is as successful as the booster soft landing will be absolutely a great achievement and a 100% mission success. This demonstration keeps SpaceX on schedule for their part of the Artemis 3 mission. Keeping the mission parameters simpler (no “refueuling” or do…

Anything Mars is pure BS. Just anything and everything.

The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon.

Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial.

Landing and then what you plan a flag and die?

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#157

Post by simiones »

mavhc wrote: post #58
cletus wrote: post #52

So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…

Has to be large to be reusable due to scaling factors. We can finally start sending useful amounts of things into space, millions of solar panels for one

How is putting solar in space more useful than putting it on Earth? You still have the problem of a capricious atmosphere between the source of the beams and the place where you need the electricity. Sure, you can slightly modulate and do a few things, but the extra energy is extraordinarily unlikely to make up the extra costs even if the transport costs were 0.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#158

Post by throwthrowuknow »

seydor wrote: post #67
multimoon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s lots of things that are just too big and heavy and need launch vehicles like that. It might be overkill for satellites, but space stations and habitats need the payload capacity of something like this to become anything resembling economical.

how many of those things are there?

A bit like asking how many 30 story buildings are there when we first started building modern steel and concrete buildings. How many cathedrals could we possibly need?

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#159

Post by creshal »

rtkwe wrote: post #150
creshal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FH had the problem that it had a comparatively small fairing compared with an upper stage that's "only" okay-ish for deep space insertions, so you can neither put really huge LEO payloads on it, nor can you give a deep space probe a really big kick stage to make up for the deficits of the upper stage. Starship solves all these issues: The upper stage is more fuel efficient, and it has more room for really big payload…

Starship might honestly have a similar payload issue with the weird door design, the way it hinges up means you need a more complex release plan than most which just pop straight off the front of the booster. During the third test flight they also tested their weird side eject design for Starlink (or other flat pack style satellites) and the video looks like the door completely ripped itself apart.

The door design isn't final yet, there's no point in whining about it. They need tankers and landers for NASA contracts short term (neither of which require payload deployment), anything else is a nice to have that can be tinkered with on the side until it works.

Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico

#160

Post by synecdoche »

krapp wrote: post #147
madaxe_again wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 10k+ people would all be doing something different if it weren’t for that one guy - so ultimately, yes.

How do you know? It's entirely feasible someone other than Elon Musk could have founded a similar company with similar goals, the same or equivalent competent staff, and had the same success. There is no unique magic sauce that Elon brings to the table here, other than money.

Feasible but not likely.
Post reply on HN