Live data from Hacker News

Starship's Sixth Flight Test

spacex.com

261–270 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#261
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To his detriment, he didn’t kill Artemis and replace it with something workable.

Artemis' unworkable design is because of the limitations of Starship. I was all-in on "cool, huge rocket go brr" until I realized that it's going to take between 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission just to get to the moon. That's a clear regression from the Saturn V.

Starship is the only part of Artemis that is actually working.

In any case, a reusable rocket architecture is way ahead of the Apollo model, not a regression.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#262

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.

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.

He's already spent the $3bn funding that was supposed to deliver the rocket to the moon and back.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA Landed on the moon in the 60s with an abacus. SpaceX can’t get out of low Earth orbit.

Didn't SpaceX launch Europa Clipper to Jupiter a few weeks ago?

They also flung a Tesla Roadster off into a wayward journey around the Sun. Not nearly as impressive I know, but significantly more amusing.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#264

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.

Imagine if a round-trip flight from the US to Europe didn’t cost $500, but only $5, unbelievable, right? This is exactly what Starship will do to space travel. Many things we see in sci-fi, like lunar and Martian cities or orbital cruise ships, could soon become reality. Personally, I can’t wait to see a massive, kilometer-wide telescope in space or nestled in a crater on the Moon. We might finally figure out dark ma…

See this is the kind of thing that's not helpful.

It's just an outlandish overly optimistic mishmash of different concepts.

Let's start with your analogy:

> Imagine if a round-trip flight from the US to Europe didn’t cost $500, but only $5, unbelievable, right?

If you mean to use this to explain that what today costs X will in the future cost 0.01X, you're probably right.

But a more accurate analogy is "Imagine if a round-trip flight from the US to Europe didn't cost $50,000,000, but only $500,000, unbelievable, right?"

Same ratios, but deeply different implications.

Today, the idea of setting up a continuously settled Mars colony - hell even a Moon colony - is unfeasibly expensive. It's ACHIEVABLE - we have the technology and the money - but it would cost an intolerable percentage of the GDP of the world to accomplish.

A 100x reduction in costs means that it becomes a fundable endeavour that countries like the US could still justify.

We're still talking about generations - maybe a century - away from someone being able to just pop over to Mars for a summer vacation, the way that a college student could to do today with an intercontinental flight.

> Many things we see in sci-fi, like lunar and Martian cities or orbital cruise ships, could soon become reality.

For a very generous definition of soon and for a highly implausible definition of what a "cruise ship" is - it'll never be as accessible to the average person as earth cruise ships. Not as long as you keep using rockets.

Regardless of reusability, there are realities of fixed FOSSIL FUEL costs associated with getting into gravity. They're not cheap, and they're not frivolous. If you want to be able get things into orbit as cheap as you're suggesting, you need to start investing in a space elevator, which noone is right now.

> Personally, I can’t wait to see a massive, kilometer-wide telescope in space

Cool, yeah, that's true, that becomes more available.

> or nestled in a crater on the Moon.

..why?

> We might finally figure out dark matter, dark energy, anti-gravity.

And the final cherry on the cake. Humanity becoming inter-planetary is important on a macro scale. And trying to go further and further into space will INCENTIVISE research into these concepts.

But in no way does getting to orbit cheaper make it easier to figure out any of these concepts. There's nothing we can do from Mars or on the way to Mars in terms of this science that we can't do from Earth.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#265

Can someone give me sources for how to debunk this? https://youtu.be/75a49S4RTRU?si=dcGFgcIWNz3nDwxw For me, it’s compelling but I’m no expert. Anyone got any background that can prove this guy is wrong?

TF seems to have an axe to grind with all things Musk.

What did he say that was wrong?

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#266
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission That is not actually such a big deal when you realize they are just ferrying fuel on a reusable rocket. They're also doing it well in advance of the mission. There is a massive logistics chain making it possible to buy fuel on your road trip, this is similar. > That's a clear regression from the Saturn V. Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will…

> Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellite…

> But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit.

The way rocket staging works - each stage delivers the next stage to a predefined orbit / trajectory or energy level. It is not Saturn V that went to the moon, it just lofted a payload (final stage) into orbit that could perform a TLI.

This was the final stage of the Saturn V rocket for TLI (123,000 kg): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB

In orbit refuelling with StarShip is a major innovation, meaning that we don't need to separate payloads into parts and assemble them on orbit. Instead we can refuel a reusable boost stage.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#267

Can someone give me sources for how to debunk this? https://youtu.be/75a49S4RTRU?si=dcGFgcIWNz3nDwxw For me, it’s compelling but I’m no expert. Anyone got any background that can prove this guy is wrong?

I think he is probably right, if you think of Starship has a government-paid program to produce a moon lander. The Starship program has blown though the NASA money to produce the basic version (but not yet the additional money agreed for a more advanced design), but has yet to deliver on any of their contracted goals.

So by its own contract, it is just about to be over-budget, behind schedule, and thus a failed project. You can argue about the pandemic blowing their timing, but the fact remain.

But SpaceX is not treating the Starship as solely a moon landing project. They are using NASA's money presumably alongside other SpaceX and Starlink monies to produce a workhorse for a number of projects alongside the moon lander part. In the closer-term it will become the launch vehicle for Starlink (the next-gen of which is too big to be launched on other vehicles), and in the (very) long-term as a vehicle to Mars.

So SpaceX probably sees the Starship project as behind schedule (par for the course, both for space projects, and for Elon Musk), but not out-of-budget. Whether their customer, NASA, agrees with this outlook is something you would have to ask them.

So I think that the video's points are true, but lack some context.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX's contracts were absolutely subsidies - the contracted Falcon 1 tests and the resulting Falcon 9 contracts were an expensive moonshot for the USG at first - but even if you discount them, Tesla absolutely hoovered up subsidies like the EV tax credits. They even have a page about them: https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives

You can argue that all government contracts are a different form of subsidy, but in common parlance people do not use the term subsidy when describing government contracts.

A government contract paying to send up student payloads on an untested in-development launcher with no requirement for a successful launch (and there were three failures) is absolutely a subsidy.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#269
post #78
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> cash giveaway gimmick

you mean fraud

> providing a social media platform that doesn’t suppress conservative viewpoints

Now amplifies ONLY them, which if you were claiming to be an impartial champion of free speech (as Musk repeatedly said) is equally as bullshit as what was happening on the platform before.

Instead, this bastion of free speech now considers "cisgender" a slur.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#270

I imagine SpaceX is on for some pretty juicy government contracts now!

Yes, considering they're achieving far better results at much lower cost than the SLS and other launch providers.

That remains to be seen. It ain't finished yet!
Post reply on HN