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

301–310 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#301

Post by JumpCrisscross »

adastra22 wrote: post #261
kibwen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of Artemis is working. Including Starship. (If Starship is working so is Orion.)

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#302

Post by ted_dunning »

llboston wrote: post #55
vlovich123 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Many YC founders did the same thing. They worked on their own startups with no salary under a student visa, and applied for H1B/O1 visas once they got funding. Is this illegal?

Yes. That's illegal.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#304

Post by nulld3v »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #255
adamm255 wrote: post #191

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’ve liked some of his other videos and made it in twenty minutes. He has three arguments: SpaceX is late and over budget on HLS, booster recapture is the easiest part of Starship’s technical risks and Starship is bad value for money. On the first two he’s right. Starship was, per SpaceX’s proposal to NASA, supposed to be almost ready by now. It’s not. But neither is any other leg of Artemis, and there is no unforgiv…

> I stopped watching when the criticism of Falcon 9’s pricing came up. Why should SpaceX, a private company, undercut itself? It’s already the cheapest (relative to mass; PSLV gives it a run for some orbits), most reliable and most frequent launch provider in the world. It makes sense for them to capture the delta as profit versus cut prices for the sake of it. (There is also no inflation adjusting done.)

Exactly, this is such an egregious claim that it proves there is no way this guy is arguing in good faith.

He says SpaceX only saves a tiny bit of money due to reuse because the retail price for F9 expendable is only a bit more than F9 reuseable.

That's like saying because the Big Mac costs $6.29 and the Big Mac combo costs $11.69, then therefore the drink and fries must cost McD's $5.40 to make. Just ridiculous.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#305

Post by teractiveodular »

guld wrote: post #131
modeless wrote: post #38

SpaceX just posted this video of the last test. It's one of the most inspiring things I've ever seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI9HQfCAw64

For those of you who like dubstep, start the following video first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2eBMuL0C2o then 3 seconds later start to watch the (muted) SpaceX video from OP's post and thank me later. ;-) Especially the catch is awesome!

OK, that's downright creepy. Especially that the singing starts with the lyrics "holding on" at the exact moment the booster is caught by the chopsticks.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#306

Post by WalterBright »

gridspy wrote: post #277
modeless wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with space guns is you can't just yeet rocks into orbit. Any orbit that starts at the surface returns to the surface. So you still need a disposable rocket and avionics and fuel in every payload to change the orbit once out of the atmosphere. Only now the rocket needs to survive being literally shot out of a gun and then traveling at orbital velocity in atmosphere. That puts a pretty high floor on the cos…

Plus, your payload needs to be gun compatible. Not gonna put people in there.

Well, in WW2 we did manage to put working radar in artillery shells.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#307

Post by scotty79 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #9
anticrymactic wrote: post #5

Last times catch was incredible, anything groundbreaking being attempted this time?

They're working off the same license they used for test 5, so they basically have to exactly the same thing they did for test 5. They did manage to add this: "An additional objective for this flight will be attempting an in-space burn using a single Raptor engine, further demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn prior to orbital missions."

That's cool PR move. If they managed to light one then it's great success. If they don't people will think they just got unlucky. But if they tried to light all and only one would work or none, or one would work but some other blew up whole rocket it would look terrible. That last eventuality is something they want to prevent by trying to light just one.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#308

Post by 7e »

gridspy wrote: post #277
modeless wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with space guns is you can't just yeet rocks into orbit. Any orbit that starts at the surface returns to the surface. So you still need a disposable rocket and avionics and fuel in every payload to change the orbit once out of the atmosphere. Only now the rocket needs to survive being literally shot out of a gun and then traveling at orbital velocity in atmosphere. That puts a pretty high floor on the cos…

Plus, your payload needs to be gun compatible. Not gonna put people in there.

Space is for robots.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#309

Post by sourcepluck »

y9ship wrote: post #197
sourcepluck wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a pure and full-blooded Dutch English Canadian American hero.

[flagged]

No, absolutely not! Almost exactly the opposite meaning was intended, and I didn't think for a second that it could be interpreted as you say there. I wrote the comment quickly, thinking the sarcasm was obvious, I apologise for not being more explicit.

The comment I responded to (which has now been removed, I think?) referred to how proud the commenter was that Musk is "American". I found this to be totally preposterous, as his cultural background is so immediately and obviously mixed.

Claiming him as "American" is a strange thing to do, is what I was thinking. Anyway, again, I sincerely apologise, and shouldn't have thrown out the comment when I was in a rush.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#310

Post by mnau »

modeless wrote: post #62
bryanlarsen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're working off the same license they used for test 5, so they basically have to exactly the same thing they did for test 5. They did manage to add this: "An additional objective for this flight will be attempting an in-space burn using a single Raptor engine, further demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn prior to orbital missions."

I think that's the last thing they need to do before they can actually launch satellites. I'm surprised there was no attempt on the last launch. Glad to see it this time. The improved Starlink constellation that Starship will enable is going to be awesome.

I think they will want to deal with heatshield first. As of now, it hasn't survived deorbiting.

SpaceX can launch satellites using Falcon9 and do it routinely. Starship needs to be developed and reach milestones, so they can get paid by NASA. Having a payload is a complication (unless it's a fun payload, remember the roadster car :D)

Post reply on HN