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

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#181

Post by starik36 »

bumby wrote: post #171
starik36 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense". The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organizati…

It doesn't miss the point because the OP is talking in the present tense. Not something from 10 years ago, e.g. "they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt"

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#182

Post by [deleted] »

macintux wrote: post #180
bumby wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launch windows generally aren't open-ended and typically only last a few hours because they are orbit-dependent. That's why when a launch is scrubbed, a window often doesn't open again until days later.

I doubt that matters for point-to-point deliveries like this.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#183

Post by bumby »

starik36 wrote: post #181
bumby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense". The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organizati…

It doesn't miss the point because the OP is talking in the present tense. Not something from 10 years ago, e.g. "they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt"

The OP was intended to convey that their business model is predicated on heavy govt funding early. I never said they get, and will continue to require, that level of support in perpetuity. The intent was to show the level of govt support necessary to where they're at. Those "old" contracts are still in execution; they're not done and and in the past. Meaning the funding is still relevant and so are the rules attached to those funds. If you doubt that, what do you think will happen to SpaceX if they suddenly start going against their SpaceAct agreements that are part of those contracts?

Even if you want to go against HN guidelines and not read the comment generously, they have still gotten the vast majority of their revenue from the govt in present tense. We can quibble about the exact percentage, and in reality it's probably impossible to pin-point without insider information. But we can use the information we know to estimate that it's still a major part of their business and it wouldn't be viable without it. And they'd still have to keep those customers happy by following their rules.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#184

Post by gitfan86 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #176
gitfan86 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that at all

So you agree that is not sound reasoning?

No, implying that I think that "they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees" when I never said that at all is not sound reasoning, it is terrible reasoning actually

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#185

Post by mlindner »

avmich wrote: post #94
rqtwteye wrote: post #78

I get pretty sad when I see this and then SLS. So much money and energy wasted on the SLS. I wonder how the NASA guys feel who are working on the SLS.

SLS gave tons of experience, of all kinds imaginable. Like, supercomputers used to calculate aerodynamics, heat-protecting tiles, landing and pacifying procedures, to name some less known. It was definitely not money wasted, even though more than 14 people gave their lives to the program.

Except nothing in SLS was strictly new. The engines are literally re-used, the solid rocket boosters are not new and are 5 segment versions of the boosters used on Shuttle, the tank design is a load-bearing version of the Shuttle. It's all 70s/80s tech at best.

There's nothing new in using supercomputers to compute aerodynamics. It's been done for decades with ever further precision. SpaceX has even done talks that can be found on youtube on it themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI

The heat protection technology is literally the exact same material as used on Apollo, except re-formed into tiles, something SpaceX has been doing with their own heat shielding technology for decades.

The landing/pacifying procedures are variants of Shuttle procedures as the same propellants are used (which are also very old). They're even the same engines and fuel used on Apollo and the Shuttle.

(Also, I do not describe "happened to die during period of employment" as people "giving their lives for the program". That's just extreme propaganda.)

So what experience was gained that was not in the form of "re-learning things that were forgotten"?

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#186

Post by AustinDev »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
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…

> 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

You're correct, I know that DARPA is evaluating this same equation right now.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#188

Post by bumby »

AustinDev wrote: post #186
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You're correct, I know that DARPA is evaluating this same equation right now.

Tbf, DARPA researches all kinds of approaches that never turn operational.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#189

Post by bumby »

macintux wrote: post #180
bumby wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launch windows generally aren't open-ended and typically only last a few hours because they are orbit-dependent. That's why when a launch is scrubbed, a window often doesn't open again until days later.

I doubt that matters for point-to-point deliveries like this.

The GP comment was making the point of keeping Starship in orbit for deliveries to mitigate the launch window risk.
Post reply on HN