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

311–320 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#311

Post by WalterBright »

gridspy wrote: post #109
tedsanders wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cheaper rockets also mean cheaper payload in that the payloads don't have to be engineered to such high standards of reliability.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#312

Post by dylan604 »

modeless wrote: post #201
dylan604 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a bit of over engineering? How much is drag reduced during liftoff by having the flaps folded?

The reason the flaps move is to provide attitude and speed control during reentry. Like a skydiver spreading their arms and legs.

oh, you mean like actual flaps of pretty much any aircraft. doh! i was thinking it was like the folding of the wings for planes on an aircraft carrier. sometimes my brain, boy, i don't know

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#313

Post by sourcepluck »

sourcepluck wrote: post #309
y9ship wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 preposter…

The fact that "Dutch English Canadian American" isn't used as a demonym by anyone anywhere is the reason I thought the joke was "obvious" (this isn't meant as a justification for the comment, just to elaborate in the hope of making it more clear).

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#314

Post by Animats »

inglor_cz wrote: post #102
nexus6 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Needs tend to develop once the means are there.

Counterexample: space stations. We've had small manned space stations for decades now, but no real application for them. They're national prestige items only.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#315

Post by dr_orpheus »

modeless wrote: post #238
7e wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the economics of space are are much more likely to be transformed by something like https://www.longshotspace.com/ . Rockets are complex, still costly, and polluting.

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…

If you want to look at someone that is further along on a concept like this you can look at SpinLaunch. Exactly what it sounds like with a gigantic centrifuge to spin and throw things really fast. But they are still throwing a small two-stage rocket.

https://www.spinlaunch.com/orbital

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#316

Post by 7e »

modeless wrote: post #238
7e wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the economics of space are are much more likely to be transformed by something like https://www.longshotspace.com/ . Rockets are complex, still costly, and polluting.

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…

I think a reusable orbital tug which rendezvous with payloads is the play here. The tug would refuel from some of the gun-launched payloads.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#317

Post by mnau »

lysace wrote: post #33
tslocum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how long those videos have been allowed on YouTube, you have to wonder... https://mashable.com/article/fake-elon-musk-crypto-scam-yout...

> Nearly four years ago, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak actually sued YouTube over Bitcoin scam livestreams that were using his likeness. So, this has clearly been going on for quite a while now. And, unfortunately, it looks like these fake YouTube livestream schemes are going to continue on, at least for the foreseeable future. I recently reported a bunch of the SpaceX ones that were running for long time. Nothing h…

How about RICO act? Youtube is clearly and knowingly profiting from a criminal activity.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#318

Post by shirro »

ranger207 wrote: post #233
adamm255 wrote: post #183

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?

Clipper is a massive payload for a planetary science mission as well. SLS was the only other operational US vehicle with the payload capacity.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#320

Post by thinkcontext »

soperj wrote: post #117
modeless wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good question. The hurdle to clear for same-day reuse will be the heat shield. SpaceX hasn't yet demonstrated that Starship can reenter the atmosphere and remain fully intact. Doing it while sustaining near zero wear on the heat shield will be even harder. But I think it is not impossible, and I don't know of any other obvious blockers for same day reuse.

They'll likely reuse the booster on the same day well before the starship portion. No heat shield on the booster. Some starships will likely stay in space for a long time before returning.

Musk has said they're aiming for hundreds of reuses for the booster and dozens for the ship.
Post reply on HN