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

SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 246 posts

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#231

Post by betwixthewires »

lukeify wrote: post #121
ericd wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they’re targeting launching much more mass than F9 for a much lower cost with Starship (<$10M). So not done yet, but it seems like they have a good shot at it. And if they pull off orbital refueling, then they can take those huge amounts of mass to geo and beyond.

Correct, but that's a forward-looking statement. The comment I was replying to was written in the past-tense.

Yeah, you're right, I put some "haven't quite happened yet" stuff in there, but the point I was making was that there was a time when discounting the man was the rational thing to do, at this point I think he's proven his ability to do what he says he's going to do, and the ones I stretched a little are well on their way to happening.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#232

Post by betwixthewires »

randomsearch wrote: post #114
betwixthewires wrote: post #91

Man, Elon Musk is awesome. Just putting the fact that I just downloaded a user manual for a multi planetary spacecraft in PDF format into historical context, if you think about how thus all came together it really is amazing. We went from "this guy is nuts" to "oh yeah this is probably going to happen." When Tesla first came into public view, the idea that a car entirely electric powered that drives itself developed…

I realise that Musk has flaws and has received criticism for the spat with the cave diver, ignoring COVID, and labour issues. Want to add that caveat. But beyond that, I feel like in terms of what he's doing Musk is some sort of time traveller, back from the future to boost humanity's progress. Why is he such an outlier? What can we as individuals learn from him? And more importantly, how do we make more Elon Musks?

I think most people get into business to make money, but that he makes money because he needs it to accomplish a goal. Every decision he makes is to accomplish that goal. For most rich philanthropist types, they only come up with those goals after they make money. I think that plays a big role.

Also the guy is methodical about it. He starts with first principles. That also plays a big part.

And he takes risks. Not just risks with his money, but risks with everything he has going on. And calculated risks.

You don't make more people like him, you can't. People like that make themselves.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#233

Post by thu2111 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #189
iso1631 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edison was an asshole too. And Franklin.

Examples of assholes abound, sure. Einstein was, by all accounts I've seen, a pretty nice fellow. Being an asshole isn't a required characteristic.

Einstein's breakthroughs happened alone, in a tiny window of highly productive years in his twenties. The rest of his life contained little of note and he never needed to build a huge/excellent team to accomplish what he's famous for. The "asshole" aspects of famous business leaders occur because they need to drive enormous groups of people beyond what they thought they were capable of.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#234

Post by thu2111 »

atq2119 wrote: post #190
cma wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that going to trigger icbm monitoring systems? NASA works in concert with hem and schedules, etc., but military use that needed readiness like this seems like it would be asking for accidents.

This is a very good point. If transportation through space becomes routine, does that affect the ability to detect nuclear first strikes, and what does it do to the calculus of mutually assured destruction? Hopefully this can be solved with comparable improvements in monitoring and/or adjustments to second strike capabilities.

ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#235

Post by zaroth »

_ph_ wrote: post #227
zaroth wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bizarre take on Elon. The man has no wealth outside the companies he has built. There’s no cash just sitting in an account that he’s withholding from the poor cowering masses. He’s put every penny of his net worth into building companies which he believes will tremendously benefit humanity. From sustainable personal transportation, to clean energy, to space exploration, to human augmentation. If you th…

Fully agree and I think it is important to point out, that while he created $150 billion of value for himself, at the same time he created even more value for a lot of people, like any Tesla shareholder. Most of the value of Tesla is not owned by Elon, but by shareholders, often holding only small amount of stock and gaining directly. Also, of course those companies pay salaries and other companies. A lot of wealth w…

You’re absolutely right, it’s not turning $180mm into $150 billion, it’s turning $180mm into $1 trillion of total value created, most of it not for himself.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#236

Post by ceejayoz »

thu2111 wrote: post #233
ceejayoz wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of assholes abound, sure. Einstein was, by all accounts I've seen, a pretty nice fellow. Being an asshole isn't a required characteristic.

Einstein's breakthroughs happened alone, in a tiny window of highly productive years in his twenties. The rest of his life contained little of note and he never needed to build a huge/excellent team to accomplish what he's famous for. The "asshole" aspects of famous business leaders occur because they need to drive enormous groups of people beyond what they thought they were capable of.

May I be as unsuccessful as Einstein someday.

Sub in Tony Hsieh, or Costco's CEO, if you prefer. Both are known for being particularly protective of their employees' well being.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#237

Post by cma »

thu2111 wrote: post #234
atq2119 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very good point. If transportation through space becomes routine, does that affect the ability to detect nuclear first strikes, and what does it do to the calculus of mutually assured destruction? Hopefully this can be solved with comparable improvements in monitoring and/or adjustments to second strike capabilities.

ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.

Launchers for MIRVs are huge.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#238

Post by giardini »

cma wrote: post #237
thu2111 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.

Launchers for MIRVs are huge.

MIRV warheads are smaller than regular nuclear warheads. The launch platforms for MIRVed nuclear warheads are the same as those for regular nuclear warheads. But on a MIRV, instead of one regular nuclear warhead there are multiple small nuclear warheads.

So, no, launchers for MIRVs are NOT huge.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#239

Post by ncmncm »

the8472 wrote: post #187
qayxc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except totally unreasonable :) Rockets that size cannot be launched anywhere near populated areas, so they'd have to launch from off-shore platforms; outside of Australia, USA and Russia there are no worthwhile destinations that can safely host on-shore rocket launch complexes for that class of rocket. This poses quite complex logistical challenges that enthusiasts just love to handwave away. But there's even more to…

> would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch I see that the TSA mindflayers have not been kind to you.…

The ferry doesn't deliver individuals. It carries a passenger seating/baggage module. People get themselves strapped in on the way out. At the launch site the module is hoisted and locked into the vehicle. On arrival, the module is extracted and lowered to the boat deck. People come down to the deck during the boat ride.

Probably their "pressure suits" are the same as the seats, just clamshells with room to scratch, and (often enough) barf.

But scheduled passenger service is 15-20 years off, if ever. They only talk about it now to make the whole enterprise seem inclusive, and not just billionaire playtime. It's even money that civilization will collapse, first.

Re: SpaceX Starship Users' Guide [pdf]

#240

Post by cma »

giardini wrote: post #238
cma wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launchers for MIRVs are huge.

MIRV warheads are smaller than regular nuclear warheads. The launch platforms for MIRVed nuclear warheads are the same as those for regular nuclear warheads. But on a MIRV, instead of one regular nuclear warhead there are multiple small nuclear warheads. So, no, launchers for MIRVs are NOT huge.

I'm thinking of things like r36m, but I guess it is used for non-mirv too. Warhead size is irrelevant as they use Mylar radar decoys or something right? Those can appear as any size so I was focusing on the launch vehicle size for monitoring.

Speed may be a differentiator like you originally said, I'm not sure if they need to end up around the same speed anyway for reentry or not (ones targeting high altitude blast for EMP maybe don't need to reentry at all?).

Post reply on HN