Starship is still not understood • Hacker News Board

Re: Starship is still not understood

#121

Post by dangerbird2 » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #62

dangerbird2 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that for Starship to hit that $10M price point, SpaceX will have to demonstrate several as of yet unproven capabilities: In-space refueling (required for any missions outside LEO), safe and reliable re-entry from orbit, and fast turnaround for Starship to be launch-ready after landing. The last thing NASA needs is a glorified Space Shuttle 2.0 that takes months to be rebuilt after each re-entry, and ha…

It doesn't matter if Starship can't do all of these. It will still be likely cheaper and more capable than NASA's SLS, even if it's capable of only launching one time. Remember, SpaceX is engineering a production line to make Starship, not just prototyping Starshipp.

> That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper.

[citation needed]

Re: Starship is still not understood

#122

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

vanattab wrote: post #97

ceejayoz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's reasonable to think NASA should currently being doing exploratory thinking about "how would we build something like a space station, lunar base, or Mars mission if Starship is available within the decade", though. Which is what I think the author is advocating; to get a few years out in front, rather than waiting until Starship reaches the point where it can't be ignored.

But isn't NASA already doing that? I mean SpaceX and starship was just awarded the solo lunar lander contract no? The first Artimis flights are in 2023 no?

A little. I take the point as "Think bigger."

Re: Starship is still not understood

#123

Post by vanattab » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

gremloni wrote: post #98

qayxc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 90,000 launches over 10 launch windows is 9,000 launches per window. Launch opportunities are about 30 days max per window (depending on the flight profile) so that'd be 300 launches per day or over 12 launches per hour . I'm not saying this is bonkers, but this is completely ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether it's 90,000 or 180,000 or even "just" 45,000 launches - it's completely impractical. Not to menti…

Based on what, your gut feel? 12 launches per hour does not seem insane at all.

In 2020 there was 114 orbital launches supporting all space missions around the world. That's 0.013 launches per hour. 12 launches per hour to support a single mission does not seem at least a little insane? I love SpaceX and am hopeful for their Mars plans but we are scientists and engineers let's think with our brains and not our hearts.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#124

Post by nine_k » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #13

Spacex is building the transcontinental railroads of the solar system. There is mind boggling upside for them. I'm kinda disappointed Blue Origin seems to have fallen in a rut. I'm sure Musk will be happy to provide transportation for Bezos space colony construction projects! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Tycoon Edit My point isn't to disparage Bezos, but to highlight the fact that anyone with grand aspirati…

Transcontinental railroads provided routes between already populated areas, with viable trade between them.

Solar system beyond Earth is more like a desert, possibly rich with resources, but nearly no resource is precious enough to be worth carrying by a starship.

The incentives for space expansion past LEO and GEO will not be economical.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#125

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

vanattab wrote: post #41

>Starship is intended to be able to transport a million tonnes of cargo to the surface of Mars in just ten launch windows. So at 100tons per starship sent to Mars that's 10,000 trips or 1000 per launch window. But the current plans call for something like 16 starship launches just for refuelling the one starship for the lunar mission. Suppose we can do the Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 laun…

"Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 launches to transport that 100million tons? And this guy is mad"

I think the idea that Starship will get us cities on mars is pure fantasyland. You could have a decent base on the moon, and maybe a visit to Mars, but if you want million tons to Mars, you have to go beyong chemical rockets, build a mars transit vehicle, etc.

It makes no sence to forgo those technologies if you are moving billions of tons.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#126

Post by oxplot » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

lquist wrote: post #90

What am I missing here? Why is spacex valuation 100bn if this is true? I would think it would be 1tn easily in this kind of capital abundant environment. Is the risk that high? Is the market size being overestimated?

I'm no financial guru, even enthusiast, but my impression is that your average investor is interested in very short term profit. If you listened to last Telsa's shareholder meeting, one of the top questions was whether Tesla was going to pay dividends! People expect a company that's ramping up faster than any other in the history, building largest factories left and right, to pay dividends to its share holders! I'm in awe how they didn't just laugh the question off and didn't take back the shares from those shareholders (only if they could).

Re: Starship is still not understood

#127

Post by abledon » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

altcognito wrote: post #66

vanattab wrote: post #41

>Starship is intended to be able to transport a million tonnes of cargo to the surface of Mars in just ten launch windows. So at 100tons per starship sent to Mars that's 10,000 trips or 1000 per launch window. But the current plans call for something like 16 starship launches just for refuelling the one starship for the lunar mission. Suppose we can do the Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 laun…

Blue Origin said it would be 16, Musk has claimed it won't be more than 8. https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-s... It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships (presumably you would need less boosters) https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starship... Anyway, it's absolutely the case that transferring a million tons of c…

> It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships

managing that many launches...spaceships mid-journey, refueling in space ETC... would the 'head count' at spaceX have to increase greatly, or would they keep a relatively small crew and just 'scale out' having it mostly controlled by code/automation

Re: Starship is still not understood

#128

Post by JulianMorrison » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

ARandumGuy wrote: post #108

prox wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be true perhaps if this wasn’t SpaceX. They already moved the goalpost with Falcon And I don’t think the author wrote what you said. His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round. The new constraints by Starship are a game changer.

Past success does not guarantee future success. And when you're dealing with space travel, which is inherently expensive and extremely dangerous, then you can't afford to buy into any hype.

If they were trying something genuinely new - like falling out of orbit and making a propulsive upright landing of a wingless booster - then some skepticism would be justified.

But what's new in Starship?

Re: Starship is still not understood

#129

Post by chinathrow » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

panick21_ wrote: post #76

vanattab wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point. This guy is pissed that NASA is not planning properly because Starship will unlock the ability to send millions of tons all over the solar system but in realty starship is only one of hundreds (thousands?) of advancements that will need to be made before we can think of sending 100's of millions of tons around the system.

The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of. Before you had it, suggesting mining a asteroid was just pointless and insane. Now you can actually think about. And that is what NASA should do. Now getting stuff to LEO is 'solved' what can you actually do.

> The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of.

Thank you for pointing that out - I just realized that with Starship, we even could start thinking about putting some smaller asteroids out of a potential collision course with it.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#130

Post by pintxo » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #31

ncallaway wrote: post #8

I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship. The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high. If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentall…

I think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does. For example, NASA could start allocating a small-ish budget (e.g. 50M$) to design a parallel mission to their Artemis-IV mission that is currently scheduled for 2026 (but will slip) and that should deliver the Gateway i-HAB module to Moon's orbit. While 50M$ (excluding launc…

Isn't the point of most/all big NASA projects to distribute as much money as possible into a specified number of states? Kind a hard then to get political backing to move to a quicker + cheaper project.