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

141–150 of 364 posts

Re: Starship is still not understood

#141

Post by ncallaway »

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…

> 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.

NASA has taken a cautiously optimistic stance on Starship. The assignment of the HLS to Starship and no other provider was an aggressively optimistic stance from NASA that surprised many of the space industry observers at the time of its announcement. The expectation (and normal NASA behavior) would've been two assign the HLS to multiple vendors, at a reduced funding level and stretch the timelines out.

So, I'd argue that NASA is already being quite bullish on Starship given the projects and funding that they have available.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#142

Post by bvogelzang »

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 have to agree with you here. Given NASA's position it has to wait and see how successful Starship will be. NASA cannot afford to lose ground financially, politically, or publicly if they bet on Starship only for there to be issues with it down the line. They're not the owners of this tech which gives them time and flexibility to wait for the right moment to capitalize on it.

I can only assume they are internally very excited at the prospect of what Starship can be to them in the future but that can't be fully expressed if something out of their control has not been fully proven. They will jump on this as soon as the risk is outweighed by the benefit which, as the author argues, is in the process of happening.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#143

Post by fallingknife »

h2odragon wrote: post #2

I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will. I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up wit…

If there is a law that prevents Elon Musk from building rockets than I am on the side of whoever breaks it.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#144

Post by api »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #28
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…

NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050. For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M. That's not sensible risk management, that's head in the sand denialism. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...

It's a jobs program for Alabama.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#145

Post by oxplot »

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…

> spend so much money on it

If you actually look at $$$ going into space development, it's minuscule compared with say, just marketing cost of Windows Vista ($500 million whereas development of Falcon 9 rocket was in $400 million range).

Re: Starship is still not understood

#146

Post by Lambdanaut »

yk wrote: post #88

The entire space reporting has the problem that simultaneously there is an established genre of fanboy fawning about space x, which is kinda unconnected to space x actually starting to disrupt space. Right now, it looks like one could save a few billions if Artemis is not green lit a decade ago. However, private launches were still rare at that time, so in absence of a, likely expensive, time machine that's just not…

> star ship does not have a planned launch to orbit yet

Starship has a planned launch to orbit in literally a month pending regulatory approval.

* source: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/14515814656454942...

Re: Starship is still not understood

#147

Post by ncallaway »

prox wrote: post #87
spacemark wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has worked on NASA contracts pretty much my whole career, you're quite right. Starship is still extremely unproven. If you look at the history of rockets, mayyyybe 1 in 5 that make it to an orbital launch debut (which is like 1 in 50 paper rockets) in turn make it to commercial rollout. The author's claim that the potential benefits of Starship are not understood by NASA is cringeworthy naive. Everyone…

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.

> His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round

That's just not true, though. NASA awarded the HLS program solely to SpaceX as a Starship lander. The Source Selection Statement of that program (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...) discusses the benefits and drawbacks of Starship in good detail.

It seems wild to claim that NASA doesn't acknowledge that Starship might come around, when they're paying SpaceX specifically for the Starship program, for moon landings with Starship in 2024 (I think we all know that date will slip, but that's the official plan).

Re: Starship is still not understood

#148

Post by dr_orpheus »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #60
bryanlarsen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050. For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M. That's not sensible risk management, that's head in the sand denialism. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...

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…

Even with SpaceX's accomplishments in dramatically reducing launch costs, the $10M price point is still insane. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy advertised prices are ~$50 million and $90 million per launch. The actual launches and mission management for any more custom launch tend to push those prices to almost double. So to assume that a much larger as yet unproven rocket with launch for $10M seems quite out of range with the others. Even if $10M ends up being the material cost, SpaceX will still be recouping their development cost which is significant. Development of the Falcon 9 was $1.6 billion [0] and I think we can assume Starship will be more than that.

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Re: Starship is still not understood

#149

Post by macintux »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #137
ceejayoz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the uncertainty around heat tiles (and the impact on rapid turnaround) plus the sheer size of the rocket, it seems like a huge step to this ignorant observer.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#150

Post by panick21_ »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #121
kiba wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Look at how fast they can build an upper stage with basic materials and standard welders from the oil industry.

The engine cost is reportedly already under 1M and they are building a huge factory t produce more.

Even under the worst assumption, where I take conservative assumptions and then double them you still end up with cost comparable to Falcon Heavy.

Post reply on HN