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

211–220 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#211

Post by a34729t »

sixothree wrote: post #172
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.

One of the dumbest things ever was the left giving up on the flag. The only way this makes sense is if much of the left actively disdain most of the nation (ie Stanford vocabulary guide around American flag being a triggering symbol or something ridiculous). I dont see how the left and patriotism are incompatible...

Re: Starship V3

#212

Post by grey-area »

ryzvonusef wrote: post #165
spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Yes, Elon is very sane. tbf, a 'sane' person wouldn't have started a rocket company and an ev company, at the same time, in a recession. He has never been sane. and that has made all the difference.

He didn’t found Tesla, he bought it then called himself founder.

Re: Starship V3

#213

Post by grey-area »

slac wrote: post #20

Gotta pump that Grok IPO /s Seriously though, the whole SpaceXAI makes zero sense to me. SpaceX was a wonderful company and there was zero need to pollute it with Twitter and a service that creates sexual images of people without their consent.

Don’t forget solar city. There is precedent for this, it is how Musk operates and it’s far more about protecting his investments and letting him use the company for his own enrichment than what makes sense for the company.

Re: Starship V3

#214

Post by jjmarr »

illiac786 wrote: post #198
jjmarr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cost would be insane. And it wouldn’t be near 30min, you’d need lots of teams to reach this, driving the cost further up. Need to rotate them on a regular basis. And soldier without gravity for months at a time are definitely not fit for combat.

> The cost would be insane.

Yeah, that's why it'd be a good way for SpaceX to make money.

Re: Starship V3

#215

Post by piloto_ciego »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #185
piloto_ciego wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Like, I hate to have to be the bearer of bad news, and maybe it’s my weird arctic anarchist soul, but, the old world order, the need for these companies to follow rules at least in spirit? That’s dead now. There are no laws but the laws of physics and the the laws others force your organization to follow. I recognize that that is distressing to people, hell, it’s been obvious to me since I was at OWS in m…

> And if I had to choose, I’d much rather have datacenters in orbit than one burning hydrocarbons loudly 2 blocks from my kids’ school. Yeah, but that choice is nonsense. Mandate that datacenters on the ground are on 100% green power and quiet, and they'll still be way way more cost effective than the orbital option.

You don’t get it. Sorry, this is an “is-ought” thing. Sure we could mandate this. But are we going to? Do the systems exist that would actually mandate this?

Looking at things right now? I would say no. We will see, maybe in up my own ass on this, but I see a pretty big set of changes coming down the pike. Adapt or die (as unpalatable as that may seem).

Re: Starship V3

#216

Post by piloto_ciego »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #181
piloto_ciego wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think he's spot on, and I normally am not fond of Elon's public behavior. I mentioned in another thread that they're getting around having to ask permission to build datacenters by doing it in space. The entire thing is to avoid NIMBY stuff I'd bet.

You can build a completely self-powered (and water-free) datacenter in the middle of nowhere for far cheaper than the satellite version. The NIMBY factor isn't so powerful as to keep datacenters off entire continents. Going to space for that is very stupid.

You still have to ask someone permission on the ground. It’s not about the money.

Re: Starship V3

#217

Post by piloto_ciego »

Tostino wrote: post #147
piloto_ciego wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly it is not my field, but back of the envelope calculations in a sun synchronous orbit with the radiators pointed towards deep space seem pretty plausible with about 1.3 to 1.7 ratio of solar area to radiator area. Like, it's not "great" but if you're not flying around the sun every 72 minutes or whatever and you can keep your panels sun on and radiate into deep space, the numbers aren't bananas.

But you need a lot of fluid or gas to move the heat in that radiator system, whereas solar has the benefit of extremely efficiently moving power around at great distances through wiring or integrated bus bars. And you need to get the heat away from the central point to the extremities of the radiator as much as possible. So you can maximize how much energy can be radiated away. Seems like the weight of the system wou…

Scott Marley’s got a video on it. The numbers work out.

Re: Starship V3

#218

Post by mathisfun123 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #151
AlexErrant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this rhetorical? Feeding the hungry. Healing the sick. Educating the masses. Etc, etc. I'm a big space fan, don't get me wrong. But your exuberance uh, needs tempering.

I meant unobtained goals. More or less those things you mentioned have solutions and they are getting better.

[flagged]

Re: Starship V3

#219

Post by piloto_ciego »

runako wrote: post #207
piloto_ciego wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Like, I hate to have to be the bearer of bad news, and maybe it’s my weird arctic anarchist soul, but, the old world order, the need for these companies to follow rules at least in spirit? That’s dead now. There are no laws but the laws of physics and the the laws others force your organization to follow. I recognize that that is distressing to people, hell, it’s been obvious to me since I was at OWS in m…

> the old world order, the need for these companies to follow rules at least in spirit? That’s dead now Pendulums swing. Anyone advocating for the development of more advanced technologies should be in favor of a system of fair laws enforced robustly. One need only look to countries that lack this foundation to understand why.

Not arguing that this is “good” rather that this is the way things are now.

Re: Starship V3

#220

Post by Dylan16807 »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #215
Dylan16807 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I had to choose, I’d much rather have datacenters in orbit than one burning hydrocarbons loudly 2 blocks from my kids’ school. Yeah, but that choice is nonsense. Mandate that datacenters on the ground are on 100% green power and quiet, and they'll still be way way more cost effective than the orbital option.

You don’t get it. Sorry, this is an “is-ought” thing. Sure we could mandate this. But are we going to? Do the systems exist that would actually mandate this? Looking at things right now? I would say no. We will see, maybe in up my own ass on this, but I see a pretty big set of changes coming down the pike. Adapt or die (as unpalatable as that may seem).

If you don't mandate anything, then they're going to build the dirty one.

So what kind of laws would lead to the orbital option being preferred over the ground-based clean option?

Post reply on HN