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

Starship is still not understood

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 364 posts

Re: Starship is still not understood

#131

Post by ARandumGuy »

deelowe wrote: post #36
twic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved this bit: > McMaster-Carr already stocks thousands of parts that will work in mines, on oil rigs, and any number of other horrendously corrosive, warranty voiding environments compared to which the vacuum of space is delightfully benign. Yeah, working underwater means it'll work in space no problem!

It's a bit naive to assume heavy industry doesn't already have solutions to most of environmental challenges in space. I'm constantly surprised by how dismissive high tech is of dinosaur industries.

Heavy industry does not specialize in the environmental and logistical challenges of space. You can't just slap in some oil drilling equipment into your rocket and expect it to perform to the degree you need. Every bit of equipment needs extensive testing, and likely extensive modification as well. That's not cheap, and it's often better to just design something purpose built for space, instead of trying to modify some piece of Earth-based equipment.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#132

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

GDC7 wrote: post #64

Space is becoming a religion for atheists, with SpaceX serving the role of the church and Elon Musk in charge of it as the techno-utopian Pope. No wonder really smart people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are staying out of it. The amount of mass that we have to bring up there to live and thrive and be happy is so enormous that Nobel astrophysicist Kip Thorne and Christopher Nolan had to essentially…

You have an SF novel in you, you just need to write it!

Re: Starship is still not understood

#133

Post by panick21_ »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #119
panick21_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you assume only basic first stage re-usability (that is well proven). That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. And for what it is worth, SLS should be canceled no matter if Starship exists or not. Its a program that embodies everything bad about the modern space industry and space policy.

> That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. If they can't prove rapid reusability for both stages, it's extremely unlikely the cost will be anywhere close to as cheap as current estimates. And if they can't refuel in orbit (which as of now, has only been performed a handful of times with small satellites), Starship will be unable to leave Earth's gravity well.

The current estimate is 2M or maybe 10M.

If the first stage is reusable, having a cargo launcher second stage that is none, reusable can be done for 30M.

First stage reuse is wall proven already.

> Starship will be unable to leave Earth's gravity well.

If its not reusable you can use it like any upper stage and it could launch anything anywhere you want.

> And if they can't refuel in orbit (which as of now, has only been performed a handful of times with small satellites)

The physics is well understood. We do it constantly with non cryogenics.

I really think this is overrated in how much of a technology risk this is. Specially if you have enough weight that you can invest in the solution.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#134

Post by s1artibartfast »

h2odragon wrote: post #54
blkhawk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it means that you take the underwater parts and use them in space - it means that it was possible to make it work in adverse environments at cheaper than NASA prices.

I'm trying to conceive a vacuum capable hydraulic cylinder. As someone who has used backhoes to dig in water then helped refurb the cylinders afterwards. I'm not seeing any happy possibilities, myself. I agree that it should be possible to make things work at cheaper prices than NASA, but that's still a long way from "easy" or "Commercial off the Shelf"

I'm curious in what ways a industrial cylinder wouldn't be vacuum capable. Pressure shouldn't be a concern. they operate at 5-10,000 PSI above the ambient environment, so an additional 14 PSI differential shouldn't matter.

I'm guessing operating temperatures would be a big concern

What failed in water?

Re: Starship is still not understood

#135

Post by ceejayoz »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #128
ARandumGuy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new.

(You can make an argument for Soyuz's just-before-landing rockets, but it wouldn't be a fair one.)

Re: Starship is still not understood

#136

Post by ncallaway »

coldtea wrote: post #52
ncallaway wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we use the same logic, don’t we get a conclusion that we should spend nothing on basic research until we’ve solved world hunger, and every other problem? I agree that we should invest more into safe drinking water (though lead seems like much more of a problem than catching fire). But I don’t think it would be wise to dedicate 100% of our nation’s resources into the problem. Some amount of R&D seems like a worthwh…

> If we use the same logic, don’t we get a conclusion that we should spend nothing on basic research until we’ve solved world hunger, and every other problem? Sounds like a very good principle. Like, if you can't fix war at the level of horses, bayonets and canons, maybe not go for inventing aircrafts and tanks and machine guns just yet - you'll just get new wars leveraging those improved means, oh wait!

> Sounds like a very good principle.

Does it? Such a world wouldn't have increased crop production, and would regularly suffer from otherwise preventable famines.

I imagine far more people would be hungry in the world where we forego all R&D in an effort to solve hunger.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#137

Post by JulianMorrison »

ceejayoz wrote: post #135
JulianMorrison wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new. (You can make an argument for Soyuz's just-before-landing rockets, but it wouldn't be a fair one.)

Okay, I'll grant you that. Not a huge step from what they already do, but it is a step.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#138

Post by oxplot »

GDC7 wrote: post #64

Space is becoming a religion for atheists, with SpaceX serving the role of the church and Elon Musk in charge of it as the techno-utopian Pope. No wonder really smart people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are staying out of it. The amount of mass that we have to bring up there to live and thrive and be happy is so enormous that Nobel astrophysicist Kip Thorne and Christopher Nolan had to essentially…

Even if a religion, sure as heck the best out there, by a large margin:

1. Got the best miracles (two building sized Falcon 9 boosters landing side by side after an orbital launch).

2. Promises exciting future, full of explosions, adventures and memes.

3. Doesn't require you to believe it based on bad evidence (already delivers the cheapest and slickest rides to space).

Re: Starship is still not understood

#139

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

theshadowknows wrote: post #6

I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…

Why not do both?

Run for office on your platform and I’ll probably vote for you.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#140

Post by soperj »

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 once Starship has proven itself capable of deliver on its promises, you’ll see NASA changing its approach radically in the manner the author describes.

Like how SLS has proven itself?

Post reply on HN