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

351–360 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#351

Post by cwillu »

modeless wrote: post #231
cryptonector wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and flap sturdiness, if they want to be able to re-enter over land so they can catch the ship.

It's not required for launching satellites. But yeah, they need to figure out the heat shield for the flap hinges before they can recover the ship.

The next block of starship has an altered geometry/location of the flaps for that reason; it's more or less a solved problem, but not worth scrapping the older ones they've already built. Iirc, the launch after this one will be SN7, which is block 2 with the new geometry.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#353

Post by laverya »

righthand wrote: post #347
shkkmo wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of that listed technology comes from building reusable rockets. Lower launch costs are a force multiplier for all of those technologies and more. > This “boom” is all private for profit companies spending investment money. Not a “boom” in the sense that any man can get involved and benefit in the tangible future. It sounds like your issue is more with capitalism than space... But lower launch costs decrease th…

Please explain to me how lower launch costs will help weather prediction. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and help me understand what lower launch costs help with the average american today. I am asking an honest question to a different poster who originally indicated that the benefits were easily imaginable. > We can easily imagine the things it will make possible. I am trying to imagine how building reusabl…

> Please explain to me how lower launch costs will help weather prediction.

Cheaper launch means more weather satellites covering more spectrum from more angles than otherwise.

> What is this special low cost rocket sauce that enables it?

Everything is dependent on cost. If we had a medicine that gave an extra 10 years of healthy life to everyone but cost $100,000,000 per person, it would be utterly infeasible to give to the masses. If it cost $100,000 - now that's an easy decision.

If something is cheap you can do more of it.

> I am trying to imagine how building reusable rockets leads to improving GPS

GPS satellites are incredibly expensive because they need to be light enough to fit in existing heavy lift launchers and reliable enough to last for 20+ years. Cheaper, heavier, more frequent launch means you can dramatically reduce the cost per satellite in a constellation, and thus send up more. Having more GPS satellites reduces time to first fix, improves coverage in adverse environments (cities in particular) and improves accuracy.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#354

Post by JumpCrisscross »

adastra22 wrote: post #332
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry by working I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.

> I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.

By that measure has humanity ever even been to space?

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#355

Post by pixl97 »

Animats wrote: post #314
inglor_cz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because launch cost is expensive. There are a lot of interesting things we can develop in zero gravity if the cost per pound was cheap.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#356

Post by righthand »

laverya wrote: post #353
righthand wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain to me how lower launch costs will help weather prediction. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and help me understand what lower launch costs help with the average american today. I am asking an honest question to a different poster who originally indicated that the benefits were easily imaginable. > We can easily imagine the things it will make possible. I am trying to imagine how building reusabl…

> Please explain to me how lower launch costs will help weather prediction. Cheaper launch means more weather satellites covering more spectrum from more angles than otherwise. > What is this special low cost rocket sauce that enables it? Everything is dependent on cost. If we had a medicine that gave an extra 10 years of healthy life to everyone but cost $100,000,000 per person, it would be utterly infeasible to giv…

Okay, now you want to put more satellites in the sky, for weather and gps.

Is there some evidence that what we have now is not enough or wouldn’t ever be replaced? I cannot find anything online about that.

So I still do not see how this will necessarily improve my daily life as the weather information I have now is already good.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#357

Post by jltsiren »

cwillu wrote: post #351
modeless wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not required for launching satellites. But yeah, they need to figure out the heat shield for the flap hinges before they can recover the ship.

The next block of starship has an altered geometry/location of the flaps for that reason; it's more or less a solved problem, but not worth scrapping the older ones they've already built. Iirc, the launch after this one will be SN7, which is block 2 with the new geometry.

It's not a solved problem. Surviving the re-entry in a condition that makes reuse economical was always the biggest challenge for the Starship. It's far from certain that they can achieve it without a fundamental change in the concept.

The feasibility of building big rockets was already demonstrated a long time ago. Given the reliability of the Falcon 9, it looked plausible that a big rocket could work with many engines. And SpaceX had already shown that they can reuse boosters economically. But reusing orbital spacecraft – the entire upper stage with engines, fuel tanks, and whatever – without expensive and time-consuming refits is something nobody has done before.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#358

Post by pfdietz »

MostlyStable wrote: post #137
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.

This article [0] is a pretty good explainer for why Starship is such a big deal [0] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-st...

> Starship is designed to be able to launch bulk cargo into LEO in >100 T chunks for So, for the cost of a single SLS launch ($4B), Starship would be able to put the mass of the battleship USS Texas into orbit.

If the cost is reduced to $1M/launch, it could put the mass of four Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers into orbit.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#359

Post by Dylan16807 »

deanCommie wrote: post #264
llboston wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I hope you don't mean hydrogen and methane. Those are downright easy to make without fossil fuels. And kerosene isn't all that hard.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#360

Post by Dylan16807 »

jltsiren wrote: post #357
cwillu wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next block of starship has an altered geometry/location of the flaps for that reason; it's more or less a solved problem, but not worth scrapping the older ones they've already built. Iirc, the launch after this one will be SN7, which is block 2 with the new geometry.

It's not a solved problem. Surviving the re-entry in a condition that makes reuse economical was always the biggest challenge for the Starship. It's far from certain that they can achieve it without a fundamental change in the concept. The feasibility of building big rockets was already demonstrated a long time ago. Given the reliability of the Falcon 9, it looked plausible that a big rocket could work with many engi…

They're saying that one specific part burning off is a solved problem, not the entire reuse process.
Post reply on HN