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

Starship's Sixth Flight Test

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#101

Post by stetrain »

lysace wrote: post #30
sebzim4500 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not groundbreaking but it's important. They are demonstrating in orbit relight capability of the raptor engines. This is an absolute requirement before they can put it fully into orbit because losing control of a Starship in low earth orbit would be catastrophic.

> because losing control of a Starship in low earth orbit would be catastrophic Why? Remote detonation wouldn't work in that case?

Generally that isn't done for a vehicle in orbit, since the distribution of debris in orbits used by other spacecraft would be significant.

A Starship second stage stranded in orbit would be a problem because detonation would cause a bunch of orbital debris, but simply waiting for natural re-entry would result in an unpredictable landing location that could result in large debris reaching populated areas.

Reliable, controlled re-entry to a targeted location is very important for Starship to be an operational launch system.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#102

Post by inglor_cz »

nexus6 wrote: post #76
modeless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally reasonable question. This is the first rocket ever that will (assuming further success) land in its entirety back on the launch pad, refuel, and go back to orbit the same day. Imagine that every time an airliner landed its cockpit was destroyed and you had to build a new one. A fully reusable airplane would be a transformational improvement. That's the level of achievement we're talking about here.

Is there such a need for a heavy launch rocket to launch routinely?

Needs tend to develop once the means are there.

200 years ago, there was no need to use electricity. 100 years ago, there was no need to use a programming language. 30 years ago, there was no need for gigabit wireless Internet.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#104

Post by fragmede »

eunoia wrote: post #89
modeless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally reasonable question. This is the first rocket ever that will (assuming further success) land in its entirety back on the launch pad, refuel, and go back to orbit the same day. Imagine that every time an airliner landed its cockpit was destroyed and you had to build a new one. A fully reusable airplane would be a transformational improvement. That's the level of achievement we're talking about here.

> go again the same day. That seems like a stretch. What is the actual turnaround time for Starship? fwiw the Shuttle had a lot of lofty promises of reusability that were technically true as long as you didn't consider how long the turnaround time was.

The previous flight was October 13, 2024, so while I can't speak to every day, one month turnaround is a reality.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#105

Post by inglor_cz »

hggigg wrote: post #98
dbish wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My South African colleague tells me he is happy that you have adopted him.

For South Africa, someone like Trump would be a huge improvement. Their governance is just abysmal, bad even for African standards. For example, you get much more reliable grid in Kenya than in SA.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#106

Post by gridspy »

eunoia wrote: post #89
modeless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally reasonable question. This is the first rocket ever that will (assuming further success) land in its entirety back on the launch pad, refuel, and go back to orbit the same day. Imagine that every time an airliner landed its cockpit was destroyed and you had to build a new one. A fully reusable airplane would be a transformational improvement. That's the level of achievement we're talking about here.

> go again the same day. That seems like a stretch. What is the actual turnaround time for Starship? fwiw the Shuttle had a lot of lofty promises of reusability that were technically true as long as you didn't consider how long the turnaround time was.

The shuttle boosters required rebuilding / refueling (which is solid rocket goop) and the fuel tank was completely lost and required rebuilding. The head shield tiles were extremely fragile on the shuttle.

It was never a fully reusable design, just more reusable than before.

SpaceX plans to have no parts that are lost each flight and is working to make the tiles mostly standardized and less sensitive to faults.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#107

Post by derekp7 »

thimabi wrote: post #70
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #64

[flagged]

Thanks to the wonderful SpaceX engineers who are actually responsible for the company’s achievements. What they’ve been accomplishing recently never ceases to amaze me.

The one big difference with the SpaceX organization is the willingness to "blow stuff up" while they are developing, which is enabled by the amount of sensor data they get on each test. That allows them to have a higher revision cadence that decreases development time. Compared to old space tech, where a rocket failure (even during early development) spells the end of the program (such as the X-10 -- it was looking good until a failed landing leg caused an impressive looking loss of vehicle, and then no more program).

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#108

Post by inglor_cz »

dingnuts wrote: post #21
delabay wrote: post #13

[flagged]

He's always been all-in on the winning candidate. His whole business is getting government subsidies. His single principle is sucking up to people in power. He loved Obama when he was in power, too. Proud to say I've found that asshole annoying since WAY before it was cool.

"His whole business is getting government subsidies."

SpaceX absolutely dominates the commercial launch market. No one forces companies from abroad to buy launches from SpaceX - only their reliability and lower prices.

For fully subsidized organizations that nevertheless cannot compete on the commercial market, see Roskosmos and Arianespace.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#109

Post by gridspy »

tedsanders wrote: post #75
paul7986 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not into space things and while this is cool i wonder what the great significance of this is? I see lots signaling how great this is and it's lost on me.

If you go to space, 90% of the cost is the rocket (depending on your accounting). If rockets can be made reusable, then you can drop costs by 90%, to first order. Cheaper rockets means cheaper satellites for internet and sensors and stuff.

Also, as mass to orbit gets cheaper you can build your payload more cheaply. Many compromises in complexity and material cost are made to minimize payload mass - we'll be able to launch cheap and heavy satellites and probes into orbit instead.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#110

Post by pantalaimon »

valine wrote: post #54
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Detonating something in orbit could trigger Kessler's Syndrome Unlikely in general, no at LEO and definitely not at the suborbital velocities IFT-6 contemplates.

LEO is the exact place you need to be careful. Higher orbits have more space and have fewer satellites overall so it's less of a concern. Obviously not a problem for IFT6 since it's sub-orbital, but the original comment was about why we need a deorbit burn rather than just triggering the flight abort system.

but lower orbits also decay quickly.

If you have debris in geostationary orbit, it will stay there basically forever whereas in low earth orbit it will burn up within a few years at worst.

Post reply on HN