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

Starship V3

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#171

Post by jjmarr »

legitster wrote: post #107
spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send to space so SpaceX and others are trying to come up with ideas to induce demand. My understanding is that Starlink mostly grew out of the same need to justify scaling up rocket production.

I don't know why space marines aren't a thing yet. The USA could put a rapid reaction force of Tier 1 Special Forces onto a space station and deploy them through atmospheric re-entry anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes.

I can only assume "too easy to track" is part of the logic.

Ditto for kinetic strikes. That was super hyped up.

Re: Starship V3

#172

Post by sixothree »

ivolimmen wrote: post #164

Saw some photo's and the first thing that stands out: the American flag. What's up with that? If you see a product launch in Europe there will be no flag in the photo's (non that I ever saw).

The flag has been coopted as a symbol of right wing nationalist politics. It's the easiest way to identify the right - their very strange love of the flag.

Re: Starship V3

#174

Post by trothamel »

rasz wrote: post #160
trothamel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's putting AI processing out of the reach of hostile local, state, and international governments. Does it need to be a cover?

>hostile ... international governments you mean other than China, russia, NK and Iran?

SpaceX's launch capacity is an order of magnitude larger that all four of those put together.

Re: Starship V3

#175

Post by scared_together »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #136
legitster wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send to space so SpaceX and others are trying to come up with ideas to induce demand. My understanding is that Starlink mostly grew out of the same need to justify scaling up rocket production.

> potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. IDK I think plenty of people will want to go to space or even cut 24 hour flights across the world to 90 minutes. As for experience - it's going to be pricy, but look how many multi-million dollar yachts are out there, parked, doing nothing. People do have money for such experiences.

I think for travel around Earth, supersonic passenger aircraft are more feasible than rockets. Even if we consider sonic booms, a lot of routes where rockets would be desirable are across uninhabited oceans.

Re: Starship V3

#176

Post by trothamel »

gpm wrote: post #88
trothamel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's putting AI processing out of the reach of hostile local, state, and international governments. Does it need to be a cover?

> It's putting AI processing out of the reach of hostile local, state, and international governments It isn't... the hostile local government can seize the ssh keys you use to control it and take it over just fine. The hostile international non-local super power just gained a new ability to jam communications or destroy it with a bit of deniability too.

So, that's generally not something local governments do in the US. They do things like increasing taxes on data centers, denying water rights, electric interconnection rights, etc. (At least, all of this has been threatened against data centers.)

Re: Starship V3

#177

Post by ordu »

danpalmer wrote: post #128
bigyabai wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the increasing use of NASA as US propaganda NASA has been propaganda since Operation Paperclip, sadly. It's hard to politicize something that's always been political, even if Musk gives Peenemünde optics a run for it's money.

Of course, which is why I said "increasing". NASA is propaganda, but when the focus is on scientific advancement I can get behind that (as a non-American). The problem is the recent shift away from science towards a more performative roadmap – getting to the Moon (again) is about showing off US might, not about science this time around, at least that's how it's being messaged. Many pure science endeavours have been c…

> getting to the Moon (again) is about showing off US might, not about science this time around

The first time around it was also about showing off US might. I don't think that something has changed much. Maybe wild Musk's lies are the only thing that was added.

Re: Starship V3

#178

Post by chrisco255 »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #26
vzaliva wrote: post #10

Reading reports of people objecting datacenters build in their states I wonder how Florida residents feel about the Spaceport ? It will certainly be more distruptive than datacenters.

Some people close to their facility in Texas aren’t too happy with the noise.

Noise never stopped people from moving to Cocoa Beach, Titusville, Cape Canaveral, etc in Florida. They been blasting rockets from there since the 1950s.

Re: Starship V3

#179

Post by chrisco255 »

vzaliva wrote: post #10

Reading reports of people objecting datacenters build in their states I wonder how Florida residents feel about the Spaceport ? It will certainly be more distruptive than datacenters.

Florida residents are extremely proud of space coast and have loved hosting rocket launches for 60+ years. Absolutely no problems at all with it. Will be great to see Starships launch from Cape Canaveral soon.

Re: Starship V3

#180

Post by robertjpayne »

cameldrv wrote: post #137
Teever wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this may be true but the scale that Musk is talking about would require an immense amount of solar panels -- and if he has the means to produce so many solar panels why not use them to solve our climate and energy crisis on Earth? Seems more like a grift to me, after the car grift and the Mars grift didn't pan out.

I’m not saying the math checks out, but the argument is that you get full sun with no atmospheric losses 24/7, so you produce way more energy per panel, and you don’t need batteries, because the power production is consistent and predictable.

Problem wont be energy input it'll be heat dumping. You can't transfer heat in a vacuum effectively -- just go google how large the International Space Station's radiators are just to ensure its electrical systems are cooled adequately.

Unless someone figures out how to break the laws of thermodynamics there's never going to be a cost effective DC in space.

Post reply on HN