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

511–520 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#511

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

echoangle wrote: post #459
mapt wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want another word for that, go with "Continuous". The ISS has been continuously occupied since November 2, 2000. But it was not, in fact, expected by anyone to be a permanent station; It is made of non-replaceable parts that age and fail (decade scale), it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale).

I would call the ISS a permanent station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:~... > It is made of non-replaceable parts Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. > it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale) I still don't see why self-sustainability is a part of being "permanent".

> I would call the ISS a permanent station.

Since the ISS end of life is scheduled for 2030 - just four years from now - I really would not call it "permanent". Even if gets a few years reprieve, that's quite temporary.

> Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to.

There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than repairing or extending them. The ISS is nearing that point.

Re: Starship V3

#512

Post by saalweachter »

Schiendelman wrote: post #475
philipallstar wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are they doing work internally that generates heat? Genuine question.

They are. But only as much heat as they get from the solar radiation that's hitting them anyway. Exactly that amount.

Except you aren't leaving that heat in place.

You're concentrating it into a very small area of compute.

If you don't spread that heat back out, it's going to find a much higher thermal equilibrium than the solar panels themselves would find just absorbing the sunlight and radiating the energy back into space.

It's like you've pointed a magnifying glass at your compute, except with electricity, which means you can reach temperatures higher than you can with a magnifying glass.

Re: Starship V3

#513

Post by sigmoid10 »

red75prime wrote: post #283
sigmoid10 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least that is what they teach you in college when you learn about the efficient market hypothesis. In reality, investors are getting less rational every year. The modern stock market has become pretty much decoupled from reality.

"Everyone is crazy" is a well-measured stance that I can respect. /s On a serious note, if you think that everyone else loses contact with reality, it's a signal to check and recheck your assumptions.

Maybe check your own knowledge on the topic you're commenting on before talking down on others. Musk for example has famously said himself on several occasions that he thinks Tesla is overvalued. But any company with a >1000x P/E ratio is less screaming "sensible investment" and more "get on the train before it moons" meme-stock. Regardless, none of this is rational anymore. It is mostly hype (and a little bit of insiders rug-pulling each other).

Re: Starship V3

#514

Post by echoangle »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #511
echoangle wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would call the ISS a permanent station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:~... > It is made of non-replaceable parts Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. > it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale) I still don't see why self-sustainability is a part of being "permanent".

> I would call the ISS a permanent station. Since the ISS end of life is scheduled for 2030 - just four years from now - I really would not call it "permanent". Even if gets a few years reprieve, that's quite temporary. > Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than r…

Something that was permanent and is now scheduled for destruction is still permanent, no?

Or can we at least agree that it was permanent at some point of its life?

> There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than repairing or extending them. The ISS is nearing that point.

Sure, but that's the case for everything, including permanent things. My house won't be around forever, I would still call it a permanent housing.

Re: Starship V3

#515

Post by jeltz »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #509
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The smart people don't care what the endgoal is. They are happily enjoying themselves building hightec. And they earn a lot of money doing so. Elon Musk on the other hand has a construct of multiply billion dollar companies he has to feed and keep alive: xAI investment burns one Billion per month. Space X makes 8 Billion per year. X cost him 40 Billion when he bought it but is not profitable. Tesla struggles to grow,…

That's a lot of alleged failure for one of the richest people in history. Maybe you should go start a car company and launch company and show us how it's done

So your comment is just appeal to authority?

Re: Starship V3

#516

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

echoangle wrote: post #514
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would call the ISS a permanent station. Since the ISS end of life is scheduled for 2030 - just four years from now - I really would not call it "permanent". Even if gets a few years reprieve, that's quite temporary. > Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than r…

Something that was permanent and is now scheduled for destruction is still permanent, no? Or can we at least agree that it was permanent at some point of its life? > There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than repairing or extending them. The ISS is nearing that point. Sure, but that's the case for everything, includin…

> Something that was permanent and is now scheduled for destruction is still permanent, no?

No, the ISS never was permanent. It had a limited lifespan from the outset. It's actually beyond the original 15-year life. But it is not indefinite.

> The ISS was originally intended for a 15-year mission, but the mission has been repeatedly extended due to its success and support

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#En...

> My house won't be around forever, I would still call it a permanent

That's true, in the sense that "A word means whatever I choose it to mean". If you were in a flat in an apartment building scheduled for demolition in 2030, would you call that "permanent housing" ?

Re: Starship V3

#517

Post by choilive »

danbruc wrote: post #434
choilive wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stefan-Boltzmann law means radiative heat transfer in space is approx. to the 4th power of the hot side of your radiator. Typical space based radiators operate around 350K. If you can increase the hot side of the refrigeration cycle by 4x (1400K) you increase heat transfer by 256x. Create a radiator design that can operate at this temp (multi-stage Brayton loops, heat pumps, possible liquid metal final stage) with a…

How much energy does it take to pump the heat from a primary loop at a temperature tolerated by the silicon to a secondary loop at 900 K? If we pick 300 K for simplicity, would we not need twice as much energy as we want to get rid of just to raise the temperature? 2 MW to raise 1 MW from 300 K to 900 K?

Yep, the COP goes down as the temperature goes up, and at a certain point it's not worthwhile increasing the temperature.

Re: Starship V3

#518

Post by nicole_express »

archagon wrote: post #222
a34729t wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The left (or center) did not "give up" on the flag. It's all over the place in protests.

I would say the center-left didn't, but the left did. Not particularly relevant to SpaceX, though, since the left doesn't run many defense contractors.

Re: Starship V3

#519

Post by Forgeties79 »

fragmede wrote: post #158
Forgeties79 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t buy into the 2010’s Tony stark persona. His momentum is clearly slowing because he can’t put his politics and rather fucked social values behind business sense. I have immense appreciation for what SpaceX has done for humanity. I’m not being dramatic. Reusable rockets alone is an incredible achievement . But he’s lost the plot. He needs to drop his right wing bullshit and stardom chasing if he wants to be taken…

Not getting invited to the EV summit would have pissed me off if I were in his place. The Trump thing; it sounds like the government was going to go after him for various violations, and hitching his wagon to Trump was his way of getting out of that jam.

I don't really care about what motivated him to behave this way if I'm being honest. He has poor impulse control and terrible social/political values. The damage and chaos he brought to the federal government is nearly impossible to overstate. Two of my family members lost their jobs for nothing because of their wild cutting, and they didn't even work for the federal government. A good friend lost a million dollar AI research grant because they had the word "accessibility" in their initial proposal (accommodating screen readers on computers, how woke and awful!) That's how far reaching his farcical "efficiency" endeavor was.

He is a bad person and we should not support him. There is no context that will make what he's done the last few years acceptable.

Re: Starship V3

#520

Post by vel0city »

philipallstar wrote: post #431
slumberlust wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down.

> Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. I'm not saying I'm dismissing the arguments for that reason, at all, to be clear! Thanks for the recommendation. > Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth f…

> If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS

I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting it or not with this statement, but we didn't need manned space flight to have GPS. We started launching satellite-based navigation systems a little bit before Yuri went to space, though the system wasn't in fully operational service until after a few human spaceflights.

Post reply on HN