Live data from Hacker News

Starship's Sixth Flight Test

spacex.com

371–380 of 455 posts

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Weather prediction isn't just about "should I have a picnic today". Accurate weater information is important for innumerable economic activites, from farming to shipping to contruction to power generation planning. Providing better forecasts would allow us to save lives and money in these industries and this will reduce the costs you pay for goods. It might even save the life of someone you love.

There are 3 new GPS satellites being launched by the US in 2025. Satellites do regularly need to be replaced; fuel runs out, batteries die or there os damage or failure. We also are developing newer and better satellites.

Satellite based internet is currently going through a revolution that is bringing internet access and economic opportunity to isolated small communities all over the world. This is a great example of new deployment that simply wasn't economically feasible with pre-SpaceX launch prices. This technology has so many potential positive impacts that it alone should justify reusable rockets. This is another application that could save the life of someone you love (better acess to emergency services in remote locations or deadzones).

Another incredibly valuable satellite industry is satelite based imaging. Timely, high precision satellite imagery is currently very expensive. Significant drops in the price would enable a unimaginable plethora of usec ases. Better wildfire monitoring, more efficient farming and ranching, search and rescue, etc.

On top of all this, starship development is actually comparatively cheap compared to how valuable space is. Losing GPS would cost the US alone 1 billion dollars a day which is why the US is planning on spending 2 billion building a backup. Starship RnD costs are estimated to somewhere near 10 billion total spread out over a decade or two.

For further comparison, I'll also note that the 2024 US presidential election cost us more 50% more than that. The entire space industry is worth about as much as the entire semiconductors industry (~600 billion) and McKinsie estimated that to triple in the next 10 years.

Finally, I'll say that what I've listed is the merest drop in the bucket compared to the uses we haven't figured out yet because space launch was so expensive.

An second order of magnitude drop in launch costs on top of the ond SpaceX has already delivered would be a big boost the the global economy in many ways, including some that are hard to predict on advance. If SpaceX can deliver a third order of magnitude drop beyond that (which has been claimed as possible with Starship) then the results would be staggering, completely transforming how we view and use space economically and enabling completely new types of space exploration missions.

The biggest problem right now is that nobody else is keeping up with SpaceX. We need more companies doing the same thing SpaceX is.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#372

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?

With all due respect, that's one of the most misguided(i wanna say retarded but.. HN) takes I've seen in a while. How could he even compare the SLS (which costs per launch about as much as it took to develop the entire reusable Starship system) to Starship?

The guy is just blinded by his hatred for Elon to even acknowledge one of the historical achievements SpaceX engineers worked their asses off for.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#373
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a two tiered justice system is dangerous grounds We don’t repeal citizenship on such flimsy grounds for anyone. The solution is to amend the law to include a statute of limitations on repealing citizenship.

Can you even deprive people of citizenship? I though Universal Declaration of Human Rights (mostly written by US no less) forbid that > Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality

You are not citing precedentedly binding law on the United States.

If one wanted to be cute, you’d presume they revert to their prior affiliation before deporting.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that part burning off is a solve problem then returning the orbital ship to the launchpad is too given that they are able to gently put it down on the sea, and that they are able to gently catch the booster. This part is basically the only problem left that is ship-specific. However for reuse (or rapid reuse) they might need to rethink heat shielding to reduce refurbishment time and cost.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#375
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Nice, how did you find a music clip with such a good match across the whole video? Or are you saying you know that SpaceX media people were using that as test music when cutting theirs?

Actually I was just listening to this song, when OP recommended the SpaceX video and I did not want to pause the song. A happy accident.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 100x reduction in costs means that it becomes a fundable endeavour that countries like the US could still justify. Don't forget the dynamics. Costs of all such projects drop further when early steps become affordable. Like, with 100x reduction on the sticker price, US might feel Mars colony is still too expensive a project, but 100x reduction on trying out some adjacent space tech may just be in range of NASA bud…

Shielding from the sun only happens when it's dark on that side of the moon. So half the month, effectively. But shielding from Earth can be constant, thanks to tidal locking. Particularly nice for really big radio telescopes.

> So half the month, effectively.

A little less, if nestled in the crater as the quoted idea would have it.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#377

I am a fan of space. I love the things that have happened with SpaceX and breaking the space industry out of a multi-decade rut, but is it possible to dsiconect the political ambitions of Musk from the technical achievements? Or, to put it more clearly, should the discussion be less about 'look how cool this tech is!' and more about 'This tech will be the gateway to space and Mars, shouldn't we be talking about the g…

I don't think we should. SpaceX has successfully applied the "move fast and break things" approach to rockets, but that's not something you can do everywhere. If Musk, as Trump's "efficiency secretary", will reduce regulations that "hinder" Tesla from doing the same thing with robotaxis, people are going to die.

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will require on the order of 10 launches to fuel up one moon lander in orbit Require, or just make comfortable? Saturn V had the lift capacity of "only" a couple of Falcon Heavies, but was enough to carry astronauts, a car, a lunar lander with enough fuel to take off, and a command module.

It's necessary because the Starship upper stage is so heavy. With a non reusable upper stage Starship's capacity would be enormous.

Is that true? SpaceX [0] gives the capacity as 150t reusable or 250t expendable, which is significant, but not enough to make one "enormous".

If you really got order-of-magnitude gains from an expendable upper stage, it wouldn't be that exciting to have reusable rockets (which are more complex and still only fly one order of magnitude more times) in the first place.

[0] https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're already the best and cheapest launch provider with Falcon 9.

Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class.

This is true.

   SLS       is around  $ 37000 / kg to Orbit
   Falcon 9  is around  $  2700 / kg to Orbit
So in excess of an order of magnitude difference.

Starship build cost is currently estimated at $90 million [1]. Let's call it $100 million to make the calculations simple. So even if they can't reuse anything and the payload is at the low-end of what they expect, so 100t from the 100-150t range, that would be $1 million per ton or $1000 per kilo. So 1/37th of SLS even when fully expendable.

With full reuse, the cost should come down to around $10/kg.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-es...

Re: Starship's Sixth Flight Test

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shielding from the sun only happens when it's dark on that side of the moon. So half the month, effectively. But shielding from Earth can be constant, thanks to tidal locking. Particularly nice for really big radio telescopes.

> So half the month, effectively. A little less, if nestled in the crater as the quoted idea would have it.

Even better: use one of the deep lava tube pits. https://futurism.com/nasa-holes-moon-comfortable-temperature
Post reply on HN