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

241–250 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#241

Post by YetAnotherNick »

pveierland wrote: post #116
spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

Beyond aggressively optimistic timelines, I find it difficult to disagree with the premise. The aggressively optimistic timelines is also what makes it feasible to even attempt these things, where e.g. the amount of iteration required for Starship would have broken most other companies. > In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. In the long term - all mass and energy available is outside o…

But if solar panel is significantly cheaper and latency doesn't matter you can have servers in any part of the world. Even if they are not up 50% of the time due to limited battery it would still be cheaper.

Re: Starship V3

#242

Post by dingaling »

tristanj wrote: post #4
laweijfmvo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn’t Monday the 18th?

Yes, the linked space.com article has an error. The launch is happening Tuesday the 19th.

If they'd just left it in UTC there wouldn't have been an error and the 'rest of World' could easily calculate in their local timezone.

Re: Starship V3

#243

Post by xboxnolifes »

spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

Even as just an investor sell, its pretty smart. Basically nothing changes for SpaceX, they just keep trying to improve launch throughput. If that payload does end up being data centers, great, he's right. If it doesn't, oh well, he still has a hugely successful space program.

Not that I think we'll end up increasing our total launch payload throughput by over 3000x within 3 years like he suggests.

Re: Starship V3

#244

Post by xboxnolifes »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #119
lucisferre wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you cool them? https://www.chaotropy.com/why-jeff-bezos-is-probably-wrong-p...

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.

Is that ratio just for collecting the sun's energy. Or does it include using it?

Re: Starship V3

#245

Post by inglor_cz »

dodu_ wrote: post #89
01100011 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got to give him credit though. His caustic managerial style seems to have borne fruit despite his lack of engineering or technical skills. He has been supremely effective at defining a vision(however delusional) and attracting funding. Will we get to Mars soon? Hell no. But we may end up with a world-leading launch provider based in the US and that's a clear win for the country.

You absolutely do not, under any circumstances, have to give him credit. Chronic over-promise, underdelivery. Where was the nearly 3T of fraud he said he'd uncover in the US government, again? Was that a clear win for the country? But hey at least he's effective at getting people to give him money, I guess, which is an indistinguishable "skill" from that of someone who is able to convince people to buy an online cour…

People fuck up. I fucked up three things yesterday. Fortunately I am not as known as Musk, so no one tears into me at Hacker News and my fuckups remain hidden.

Nevertheless...

"underdelivery."

Both Falcon and Starlink are quite major improvements over previous status quo. It is not just a question of having a nice WiFi during your flight. If you are interested in some very practical consequences, look at the Russo-Ukrainian war and the role Starlink plays there.

Re: Starship V3

#246

Post by inglor_cz »

eagerpace wrote: post #46
beambot wrote: post #32

Those Raptor 3 engines are a thing of beautiful simplicity compared to their forebears...

And to think, it wasn’t that long ago competitors we still using old Russian engines for their domestic rockets. Brilliant work to get back to leadership in this domain.

The engines for New Glenn ain't bad either.

Competition does improve products.

Re: Starship V3

#247

Post by philipallstar »

pibaker wrote: post #223
pveierland wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond aggressively optimistic timelines, I find it difficult to disagree with the premise. The aggressively optimistic timelines is also what makes it feasible to even attempt these things, where e.g. the amount of iteration required for Starship would have broken most other companies. > In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. In the long term - all mass and energy available is outside o…

> In the long term In case anyone is wondering how Tesla’s stock price remain wildly detached from its business reality, keep these four words in mind. If you can convince people that anything about you and your business has to be evaluated on a literally astronomical timescale, you can justify any valuation you desire, because your believers will give you infinite time to realize their investment returns. It has not…

All share price fundamentals are based on the long term. Short term trading is why some shares are very briefly high or low.

Re: Starship V3

#248

Post by inglor_cz »

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).

"Europe" does not have a unified stance on this, don't paint our entire continent as The Borg.

If you are Dutch, just take a one-hour flight to Copenhagen to see how a city can be absolutely plastered with national flags.

If Poland or France were introducing a new nationally produced rocket, they would certainly show their national flags around it as well. They definitely do so when displaying new weapons. So does Ukraine etc.

Accidentally, I remember the Dutch colors on every package of Dutch cheese I ever bought.

Re: Starship V3

#249

Post by MagicMoonlight »

ActorNightly wrote: post #150
AlexErrant wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas

Permanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere. None of those are self sustaining.

America still isn’t self sustaining and it’s been hundreds of years.

Re: Starship V3

#250

Post by panick21_ »

Fordec wrote: post #113
neuronexmachina wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basically assuming that "space-based data centers" are some Glomar Explorer-style cover for something else.

I assume because the Mars goal is as good as dead with what they're finding out about the complexities of building Starship that they can barely get it back down to this planet, never mind back from a second one. This "space datacenters is more important than colonizing the universe" thing is just to deflect from what would be an inevitable failure because if they do this pivot, they can push out the timeline for tha…

> they can barely get it back down to this planet

Being the first rocket in history where both parts reached the ground ready to land is a pretty good start.

And if Starship can't land then any space datacenters are just as or even more unlikely, so that explaition makes no sense what so ever.

Post reply on HN