Starship V3 • Hacker News Board

Re: Starship V3

#191

Post by illiac786 » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:32 AM UTC

pveierland wrote: post #116

spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

Beyond aggressively optimistic timelines, I find it difficult to disagree with the premise. The aggressively optimistic timelines is also what makes it feasible to even attempt these things, where e.g. the amount of iteration required for Starship would have broken most other companies. > In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. In the long term - all mass and energy available is outside o…

It’s like saying within 2-3 years the sun will go out.

Almost correct, yes.

Re: Starship V3

#192

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:32 AM UTC

robertjpayne wrote: post #180

cameldrv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying the math checks out, but the argument is that you get full sun with no atmospheric losses 24/7, so you produce way more energy per panel, and you don’t need batteries, because the power production is consistent and predictable.

Problem wont be energy input it'll be heat dumping. You can't transfer heat in a vacuum effectively -- just go google how large the International Space Station's radiators are just to ensure its electrical systems are cooled adequately. Unless someone figures out how to break the laws of thermodynamics there's never going to be a cost effective DC in space.

To keep everything under 100C (or 50C), your radiator surface area is in the same ballpark as your solar panel surface area. No laws of thermodynamics need to be broken. But you do need very low launch costs.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperat... A blackbody sphere near Earth's orbit balances out to almost exactly 0C. A sphere has about 4x as much radiating surface as capturing surface. A flat surface facing the sun that would have 2x, front and back.

Re: Starship V3

#193

Post by illiac786 » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:33 AM UTC

ryzvonusef wrote: post #165

spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> Yes, Elon is very sane. tbf, a 'sane' person wouldn't have started a rocket company and an ev company, at the same time, in a recession. He has never been sane. and that has made all the difference.

You are saying he got lucky? That doesn’t necessarily mean he will continue to be lucky.

Re: Starship V3

#194

Post by illiac786 » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:35 AM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #159

dopa42365 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before LEO internet constellations, even the leading nations had just ~20-25 launches per year each, and a good chunk of those were for ISS services. Other than the occasional GNSS, weather, scientific, broadcast and surveillance satellite, there's not all that much worth sending into space.

I, and I'm not alone, would pay a giant pile of money to go into space for a holiday.

That ought to be the most CO2 heavy holiday I can think of. I wish it could be made illegal, but I am certain there will always be one country allowing it.

Re: Starship V3

#195

Post by magicalist » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:35 AM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #53

spankalee wrote: post #38

[flagged]

[flagged]

> "We'll need thousands of them!

> Yes, they know.

> Starlink is already planned for a scale of tens of thousands of satellites.

Meanwhile Google installed that many TPUs yesterday afternoon. The idea is still stupid.

Re: Starship V3

#196

Post by dzhiurgis » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:36 AM UTC

scared_together wrote: post #175

dzhiurgis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. IDK I think plenty of people will want to go to space or even cut 24 hour flights across the world to 90 minutes. As for experience - it's going to be pricy, but look how many multi-million dollar yachts are out there, parked, doing nothing. People do have money for such experiences.

I think for travel around Earth, supersonic passenger aircraft are more feasible than rockets. Even if we consider sonic booms, a lot of routes where rockets would be desirable are across uninhabited oceans.

Somewhat agree. Boom has demonstrated something, but Starship looks more ready than them. Plus it's going to be vastly more faster and more impressive.

Sonic boom can't be the limiting factor forever.

Re: Starship V3

#197

Post by onehair » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:37 AM UTC

illiac786 wrote: post #193

ryzvonusef wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, Elon is very sane. tbf, a 'sane' person wouldn't have started a rocket company and an ev company, at the same time, in a recession. He has never been sane. and that has made all the difference.

You are saying he got lucky? That doesn’t necessarily mean he will continue to be lucky.

They mean, to attempt things that seem very difficult to normies like you and me, and be successful at it, one needs to be insane.

Re: Starship V3

#198

Post by illiac786 » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:38 AM UTC

jjmarr wrote: post #171

legitster wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send to space so SpaceX and others are trying to come up with ideas to induce demand. My understanding is that Starlink mostly grew out of the same need to justify scaling up rocket production.

I don't know why space marines aren't a thing yet. The USA could put a rapid reaction force of Tier 1 Special Forces onto a space station and deploy them through atmospheric re-entry anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes. I can only assume "too easy to track" is part of the logic. Ditto for kinetic strikes. That was super hyped up.

The cost would be insane. And it wouldn’t be near 30min, you’d need lots of teams to reach this, driving the cost further up. Need to rotate them on a regular basis. And soldier without gravity for months at a time are definitely not fit for combat.

Re: Starship V3

#199

Post by mdeeks » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:43 AM UTC

sixothree wrote: post #172

ivolimmen wrote: post #164

Saw some photo's and the first thing that stands out: the American flag. What's up with that? If you see a product launch in Europe there will be no flag in the photo's (non that I ever saw).

The flag has been coopted as a symbol of right wing nationalist politics. It's the easiest way to identify the right - their very strange love of the flag.

What? There are three flags flying in my street alone and I'm in the middle of the liberal bay area.

Re: Starship V3

#200

Post by weregiraffe » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:43 AM UTC

Fordec wrote: post #113

neuronexmachina wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basically assuming that "space-based data centers" are some Glomar Explorer-style cover for something else.

I assume because the Mars goal is as good as dead with what they're finding out about the complexities of building Starship that they can barely get it back down to this planet, never mind back from a second one. This "space datacenters is more important than colonizing the universe" thing is just to deflect from what would be an inevitable failure because if they do this pivot, they can push out the timeline for tha…

SpaceX perfected Falcon 9 reuse, they perfected Dragon, they perfected Starlink. Are you seriously going to bet they can't improve on the Space Shuttle? Which is what Starship/Super Heavy is, Space Shuttle idea implemented correctly.