Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 363 posts

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#41

Post by briandw »

staplung wrote: post #24
boxed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to previous comment, looks like the cost per launch when the system was up and running was ~1billion USD inflation adjusted. I'm going to assume Starship will beat that easily.

Maybe, but remember that getting astronauts to the moon and back took a single Saturn V launch but with Starship, it will take (at least) 10 flights for refueling, possibly as many as 20. So each launch has to be much cheaper to beat Saturn V for the full mission. Nobody but SpaceX knows how much each Starship test costs but the estimates online range from $50 million to $200 million. Presumably, whatever the actual…

A starship mission to the moon will land over 100tons of cargo. Saturn V could get roughly 5tons to the surface. Its an entirely different class of operation.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#42

Post by ekianjo »

Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

> And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fin

They specifically said they're testing lighter fins to see how much they would hold. Let's not invent problems when it's an experiment that was clearly stated.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#43

Post by ekianjo »

criddell wrote: post #36
seatac76 wrote: post #13

Amazing achievement. Just watching no that giant thing lift off is a great feeling.

I know it's a similar size to the Saturn V, but something about the Saturn V just seems grander to me. Maybe it's the paint job? Frankly, it kind of blows my mind what the US pulled off in the late 60's, early 70's with the technology and materials of the time.

They had virtually infinite budget at the time. SpaceX is much, much cheaper.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#44

Post by baq »

gcanyon wrote: post #35
Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

The explosion was unexpected and (as far as I know at the moment) unexplained, but they flew the mission at the edge of the envelope, and with a variety of different materials/missing bits on purpose, to better understand where the edge is. Everything that happened (maybe even including the explosion, we'll see in the final analysis) was, as far as we know, within the plan. The biggest can't-miss milestone was the fl…

I'd say the payload door situation is a considerable success, at least as big as the relight itself.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#45

Post by lstodd »

maxehmookau wrote: post #23
enraged_camel wrote: post #20

Incredible achievement, but what is more incredible is how many people (including almost all of my friends circle) have started rooting for SpaceX to fail due to the shenanigans of its founder. I think as a culture we've lost the ability to compartmentalize. We should be able to criticize and even despise the head of a company, and at the same time celebrate when the intelligence and hard work of the countless smart…

[flagged]

At a cost of indiscriminately imprisoning and killing people (remember Korolyov and von Braun)? Surely. he-he.

If Musk does achieve a second foothold for the humanity, then any and all objections to his methods become irrelevant. So far he does deliver. So we wait for the final result.

Also, if you don't know, we've got a war in europe for like 3.5 years already. I'm seriously curious how many times a space-x total program cost since their start in 2000s has been already sunk into that.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#46

Post by bethekidyouwant »

nerdjon wrote: post #31
enraged_camel wrote: post #20

Incredible achievement, but what is more incredible is how many people (including almost all of my friends circle) have started rooting for SpaceX to fail due to the shenanigans of its founder. I think as a culture we've lost the ability to compartmentalize. We should be able to criticize and even despise the head of a company, and at the same time celebrate when the intelligence and hard work of the countless smart…

This is something I am finding myself wrestling with a lot right now. On the one hand I am a major space nerd and I see the value of what SpaceX is doing. Especially with it really seeming like no one is anywhere near their level. What kind of scientific advancements will be possible once this thing can be used normally and launches like this become commonplace. But at the same time it is impossible to ignore the Elo…

“a satellite that monitors climate change” - really you think Elon Musk is not gonna fly satellites with instruments on them that point downwards?

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#47

Post by fluoridation »

stetrain wrote: post #32
fluoridation wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship isn't exactly the same as Saturn V. It's bigger, for one. The reason why it matters is that efficiency matters. It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications. And as I understand it the consensus is that Starship (or at least a fully-loaded Starship) will never go to the Moon. Once it's in orbit it takes like twenty refueling la…

I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS/Orion. Yes the mission profile is more complex, but that complexity can mostly be settled before the astronauts launch on their mission. NASA seems to think it is a viable plan whic…

Wikipedia:

> After a multi-phase design effort, on April 16, 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to develop Starship HLS and deliver it to near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) prior to arrival of the crew for use on the Artemis III mission. The delivery requires that Starship HLS be refueled in Earth orbit before boosting to the NRHO, and this refueling requires a pre-positioned propellant depot in Earth orbit that is filled by multiple (at least 14) tanker flights.

I stand by what I said: not happening. I'll believe it when I see it.

Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? I can't imagine why someone would approve this plan, other than corruption.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#48

Post by gtirloni »

ekianjo wrote: post #42
Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

> And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fin They specifically said they're testing lighter fins to see how much they would hold. Let's not invent problems when it's an experiment that was clearly stated.

Is it common to plan an explosion to test how something will react in these launches? Honest question, I know nothing about rockets.

In SRE, we have chaos engineering so I'm wondering if it's the same concept.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#49

Post by bpodgursky »

Romario77 wrote: post #18

It was a significant progress, but I won't call it "nailed it". As there was an damage or explosion on re-entry where the skirt of the starship got damaged. And we could see pretty significant damage on one of the fins. Nailing it would be without the things above.

For Starlink deploys (or other commercial launches) re-entry isn't too critical. Starship is still an order of magnitude cheaper than other launch vehicles even without Stage 2 re-use.

They'll need a higher bar for Artemis but frankly Starship is not the only critical bottleneck there and it's not SpaceX's main financial driver.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#50

Post by fluoridation »

dylan604 wrote: post #38
fluoridation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those weren't on the Saturn V, though. They were various rockets for Mercury, and Titan II for Gemini.

Do you think they would/could have built the Saturn V without building the other engines first?

If we're going down this road, we'd have to include the global GDP back thousands of years. I asked specifically about Saturn V so I could make a reasonable comparison between it and Starship.
Post reply on HN