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

SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 363 posts

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#171

Post by dpifke »

Zigurd wrote: post #124

Too many things don't add up, for example: SpaceX, and friendly commentators, have framed this as a highly experimental test flight. The most visible aspect of that are the heatshield test tiles on various parts of the upper stage. That kind of testing is understandable to a certain extent. But it doesn't make sense to ditch the rocket in the Indian Ocean once you've run those experiments, instead of catching it, and…

The ground equipment is the longest lead-time item for future flights. If you accidentally blow that up, it sets the program back months.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#172

Post by anthem2025 »

lstodd wrote: post #45
maxehmookau wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At a cost of indiscriminately imprisoning and killing people (remember Korolyov and von Braun)? Surely. he-he. If Musk does achieve a second foothold for the humanity, then any and all objections to his methods become irrelevant. So far he does deliver. So we wait for the final result. Also, if you don't know, we've got a war in europe for like 3.5 years already. I'm seriously curious how many times a space-x total p…

[dead]

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#173

Post by nilstycho »

jmyeet wrote: post #133
grapesodaaaaa wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal estimates are similar. For anyone that followed Falcon 9 development (from the first Falcon 1 launches), it’s really similar. I remember boom after boom until one day they cracked the problem and reusable boosters became the status quo. I got tingles when the first booster landed on the drone ship, because I knew access to space had just changed in a fundamental way.

Comparing Falcon 9 to Starship is a dangerous mistake. First, the time frames are way off. Development of the Falcon 9 took ~5 years (2005 to 2010). The first reused booster came much later (2017?). Second, Starship is much more expensive for each launch attempt than Falcon 9 ever was. Third, Starship is significantly more complicated technology-wise, being methane based. There are reasons to do this but it then requ…

> Second, Starship is much more expensive for each launch attempt than Falcon 9 ever was.

The launch cost of a Starship today is high, especially if you include development costs, but Musk's goal is a marginal launch cost of ~$1M. A Falcon 9's launch price is ~$70M; Musk claims a "best case" marginal Falcon 9 launch costs ~$15M.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#174

Post by mchusma »

Love it, great job SpaceX!

I watched the Martian again the other day and I marveled about how much has changed. With Starship progress, almost none of the plot really makes sense (bespoke vehicles and payloads etc). The first mars expeditions will probably be stocked with a thousand tons of gear, enough to easily last a guy 5 years. And if some dude were stranded on Mars, SpaceX could start lobbing things in his direction within maybe 30 days?

The Martian is a vision for a 2035 mission from 2011. We seem likely to beat that!

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#175

Post by thesmart »

briandw wrote: post #41
staplung wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but remember that getting astronauts to the moon and back took a single Saturn V launch but with Starship, it will take (at least) 10 flights for refueling, possibly as many as 20. So each launch has to be much cheaper to beat Saturn V for the full mission. Nobody but SpaceX knows how much each Starship test costs but the estimates online range from $50 million to $200 million. Presumably, whatever the actual…

A starship mission to the moon will land over 100tons of cargo. Saturn V could get roughly 5tons to the surface. Its an entirely different class of operation.

That's LEO, not to lunar orbit and entry. Saturn V had a maximum lift capacity of 310,000 lb (140,000 kg) to low Earth orbit (LEO) and could deliver approximately 50 tons (45,000 kg) of payload to the Moon.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#176

Post by NitpickLawyer »

lupusreal wrote: post #160

It's a very cool rocket and this success is a nice change of pace from the past several failures. However, I just have to say: > Mars rocket Very dubious. If you disregard all the SpaceX marketting talk and just go by what they're building, then it's a rocket meant for launching very large satellite constellations as cheap as possible.

The only reason they're doing full reusability is to enable Mars missions. Had they only wanted cheap flights for satellite constellations they could have launched with what they have now (i.e. reusable booster and single use starship), and it would be cheaper than anything on the market with huge upmass capabilities.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#178

Post by [deleted] »

Zigurd wrote: post #124

Too many things don't add up, for example: SpaceX, and friendly commentators, have framed this as a highly experimental test flight. The most visible aspect of that are the heatshield test tiles on various parts of the upper stage. That kind of testing is understandable to a certain extent. But it doesn't make sense to ditch the rocket in the Indian Ocean once you've run those experiments, instead of catching it, and…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#179

Post by FredPret »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #63
fhd2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? I'm not knowledgeable on this at all, but it _seems_ like Space X is blowing up a lot more expensive equipment compared to NASA back in the space race days. Genuinely curious how it compares and how true my outsider impression is.

Not to mention the mountain of prior art to work off of... It's way harder to do it the first time.

SpaceX IS doing lots of important things for the first time.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#180

Post by dmbche »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #60
fluoridation wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia: > After a multi-phase design effort, on April 16, 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to develop Starship HLS and deliver it to near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) prior to arrival of the crew for use on the Artemis III mission. The delivery requires that Starship HLS be refueled in Earth orbit before boosting to the NRHO, and this refueling requires a pre-positioned propellant depot in Earth orbit that is filled by…

> Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely. They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yes…

False dichotomy - the mission profile dictates the refuelling station and all that, but it never was the only option. Somehow we've decided we needed to be able to do lots of trips to the moon for Artemis, but it's not clear to me that it's such a precious golden oportunity and warrants this spending/impact on the environnenent.

We didn't get to the moon with a refuelling station did we? How come we need one now? We're really seeing 15 starship launches per moon trip as reasonable, rather than just building a single trip program?

The mission itself is nonsensical. The problems are stemming from the SLS, I'll find a link to a relevant source.

Post reply on HN