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

Starship / Super Heavy

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#111

Post by bodhiandphysics »

mempko wrote: post #95
electriclove wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apollo program was indeed amazing. Government bureaucracy and mediocrity is responsible for 50 years of regression. What SpaceX is doing with Starship is also amazing on so many levels (Raptor engine, reusable, goal of Mars, etc).

Isn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?

Almost not at all... something like 50 million so far for a program whose costs are probably in the low billions. Mostly spacex is paying for it with its capital raises

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#112

Post by colechristensen »

mrlonglong wrote: post #21
colechristensen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site has extensive solar power, I'm not aware of environmental concerns for solar-powered desalination. I would guess that it is driven by a real need for water and a hedge against environmental assessment difficulties.

What are they going to do with all the brine. It's quite toxic and I don't think it's a good idea to dump that back in the sea.

Dilute it? There’s a whole ocean right there.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#114

Post by dorkwood »

ubertoop wrote: post #72
divbzero wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This factoid [1] may soon need an update. [1]: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-r... "Largest rocket"

Nice use of "factoid". Most people use this world incorrectly.

If most people are using a word to mean something different, doesn't that mean the meaning of the word has changed?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#115

Post by babesh »

SECProto wrote: post #103
flybrand wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brine has set waste disposal costs and methods - near the ocean and with active oil wells nearby there are many options.

Yup. Salinity would be 36 ppt, so for every 1000 tonnes of water they need, they'd produce 2 truck loads of salt (so say maybe 20 truckloads of brine). It's a lot easier to truck out and dispose of 20 loads of brine, than to source and truck in 250 loads of fresh water

Maybe they can use that salt for the Tesla lithium extraction?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#116

Post by hourislate »

mabbo wrote: post #9

> The fully integrated Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle will be approximately 400 feet tall and 30 feet in diameter. For reference, the Saturn V rocket from the Apollo program was 363 feet tall. It was 33 ft wide at the first stage, while Starship is 30 ft wide all the way to the top. It's just massive. And it's fully reusable. What a game changer.

I've walked along the length of the rocket at NASA in Houston. It's massive and to think it took all that power to get that tiny capsule to the moon with a few men. Pretty amazing...

The Starship is designed to carry 100 people. SpaceX will be able to send more people to the moon in one mission than all the moon landings ever sent. Wow...

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#117

Post by alasdair_ »

dorkwood wrote: post #114
ubertoop wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice use of "factoid". Most people use this world incorrectly.

If most people are using a word to mean something different, doesn't that mean the meaning of the word has changed?

It depends which people you are talking to.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#118

Post by andrewguenther »

fnord77 wrote: post #77
mabbo wrote: post #9

> The fully integrated Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle will be approximately 400 feet tall and 30 feet in diameter. For reference, the Saturn V rocket from the Apollo program was 363 feet tall. It was 33 ft wide at the first stage, while Starship is 30 ft wide all the way to the top. It's just massive. And it's fully reusable. What a game changer.

considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.

Considering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#119

Post by maccam94 »

bodhiandphysics wrote: post #111
mempko wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?

Almost not at all... something like 50 million so far for a program whose costs are probably in the low billions. Mostly spacex is paying for it with its capital raises

Yeah, all I've heard is $53M for testing in-orbit refueling and $135M for developing the lunar lander version of Starship for the Artemis program.
Post reply on HN