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

SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#141

Post by starik36 »

bumby wrote: post #17
olliecornelia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.

I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.

> 98% of their funding from the govt

That is nonsense. Look at their flight manifest and see how many flights are NASA or Space Force. Maybe like 3 launches in the next several months out of planned 25.

https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#142

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101
AustinDev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you have that equipment in a Starship already in orbit?

> What if you have that equipment in a Starship already in orbit? Way cheaper to have redundant assets at multiple sites on the ground.

lol - wat?

As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally).

Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander.

Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't really care about 'Cheap', or they wouldn't have spend ungodly numbers on the f35. They care about effective. The check book is infinite, and slight advantage is everything.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you have that equipment in a Starship already in orbit? Way cheaper to have redundant assets at multiple sites on the ground.

lol - wat? As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally). Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander. Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't…

> Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't really care about 'Cheap', or they wouldn't have spend ungodly numbers on the f35.

Being cheap was the motivation for everything that led to the F-35 being expensive, so, no, this is wrong: the military cares a lot about cheap, they are just very bad at doing it.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#144

Post by mercutio2 »

dylan604 wrote: post #111
rqtwteye wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include factory because it’s redundant. " I think you could call any company that tries to mass produce something a "X factory company" because from a certain scale on production and supply chains are where the real knowledge is. Apple could be called a "phone factory company".

>Apple could be called a "phone factory company". Could it? It doesn't actually make them. It hires 3rd party companies for that. Where Ford owns/operates factories that produces their products. Unless I'm confused and Ford doesn't own their factories?

Ownership doesn't seem particularly important. Apple designs the specifications, the supply chains, and the QC, leaving a few pieces of the labor supply up to partners.

Still seems like a phone factory company, even if they don't own everything soup to nuts like early auto factories tried to do.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#145

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #143
TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol - wat? As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally). Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander. Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't…

> Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't really care about 'Cheap', or they wouldn't have spend ungodly numbers on the f35. Being cheap was the motivation for everything that led to the F-35 being expensive, so, no, this is wrong: the military cares a lot about cheap, they are just very bad at doing it.

Being cheap is developing a next generation war-fighter that blows every other aircraft out of the water? next generation halo lenses, with advances stealth, manuverability, and rate of weapon deployment? With multiple different variety's and add ons to enable all weather and VTOL? What is cheap about the initial contraints of the project?

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#146

Post by dragonwriter »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #145
dragonwriter wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't really care about 'Cheap', or they wouldn't have spend ungodly numbers on the f35. Being cheap was the motivation for everything that led to the F-35 being expensive, so, no, this is wrong: the military cares a lot about cheap, they are just very bad at doing it.

Being cheap is developing a next generation war-fighter that blows every other aircraft out of the water? next generation halo lenses, with advances stealth, manuverability, and rate of weapon deployment? With multiple different variety's and add ons to enable all weather and VTOL? What is cheap about the initial contraints of the project?

The F-35 (more specifically, the JSF program out of which the F-35 was the successful contender) was conceived as a comparatively cheap multiservice, multirole fighter to reduce both initial development and ongoing operational costs by having a high degree of commonality between the conventional air force model, the CATOBAR navy model, and the STOVL marine corps model; It was also supposed to replace basically every US fighter and strike aircraft except for the F-15 and variants, which the F-22 would replace, and the F-22 itself.

As it turned out “do everything" and “be cheap” turned out to be less compatible goals than originally envisioned.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#147

Post by bumby »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #131
bumby wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's based on forecasts and not real numbers (because SpaceX is a private company), but it's a good point.

They've announced that they had 1 million users in December. It's likely that ARPU is over $1000/user.

Assuming a 100% renewal rate

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#148

Post by bumby »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #139
bumby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right; I could have phrased it better. I think we pretty much agree, given what data is available. My main point is that their business model is predicated government contracts early before they can transition to other income streams. That's not really crony capitalism and it's part of the intent of the government to spur new industries. But I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capit…

I think we prettymuch agree to, but I have an obvious quibbling problem. > I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capitalism that can exist outside of government money. (Which, ironically, is a point many people hold against legacy aerospace). And I think that latter point is relevant because SpaceX (and Musk himself) is often held up as some sort of capitalistic ideal and any counterpoint to that mak…

This isn’t new. It’s exactly how the airplane was invented over 100+ years ago.

The Army didn’t tell Orville and Wilbur how to build. They dangled the carrot of a lucrative military contract to incentivize their innovation. It’s what transitioned the effort from hobbyists to an actual industry. There was no “industry” until the govt put up money because the govt was really the only entity that could bear that kind of risk. It’s the same with the initial days of SpaceX.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#149

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you have that equipment in a Starship already in orbit? Way cheaper to have redundant assets at multiple sites on the ground.

lol - wat? As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally). Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander. Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't…

> completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend

Nobody suggested building more bases. The proposed problem was launch reliability. A major reason for launch scrubs is weather.

AustinDev proposed staging in orbit [1]. I said it’s cheaper to have more than one launch location on the ground over more than one launch location in orbit.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35485273

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#150

Post by yreg »

detritus wrote: post #80
elif wrote: post #43

I saw on their YouTube channel that they are tentatively targeting 4/20 to light it up :)

ughft. I mean: I smoke hashish, but honestly, Musk's adolescent little references like these are really trite and demeaning to the magnitude of what his companies are hoping to achieve. S3XY, poop emoji and 'Titter'. ughft, just stop already.

I don't get the people who hate it to the point of complaining about it in discussions.

I mean I don't find the farting and 4/20 references funny, but I don't see a reason to be bothered. I'm happy for the people whom it makes smile.

And I think S3XY is clever. I like that it gives the models sort of a canonical order and always feel good when I see them ordered that way by someone other than Tesla.

Post reply on HN