Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

space.com

241–250 of 326 posts

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#241
post #216
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a somewhat similar situation Sergey Korolyov stopped his colleague in front of the Party officials asking a similar question and explained: "We are exploring terra incognita, this is the process of getting knowledge". He was sort of right - even though there were many specific engineering problems, and many of those were rather solvable, especially in hindsight, overall process was stepping into the unknown. Here…

> Sergey Korolyov [...] explained: "[...]" Not relevant to the discussion, but while it's fairly bland and feels right, I can't find a reference to that quote anywhere. Is this a hallucination? Where did you get it? The fact that you're quoting directly implies you copied it from somewhere.

My quote is inexact, of course.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/636007main_R... page 458 of 831, exact quote:

“Everything that Chertok was about to tell you will take a lot of time. An explanation of what caused all the failures while solving the soft landing problem is presented in detail on these posters, focusing on each individual launch. But there is one general cause that explains everything—this is a learning process. In our plans and schedules, we did not make provisions for the expenditure of resources and time on the learning process. That is where we made our mistake; we have paid for it, and I dare say that in the very near future the mission will be accomplished. Our learning process has taken us down a rough road, but we have gained invaluable experience. I request that the commission permit us to conduct a launch and make the final decision, if you deem it necessary, based on the results of that launch.”

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#242
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument for the IPO was to fund their space datacenters project, if Musk could afford to ignore the stock price, that wouldn't be needed.

At this point in time, Musk can afford to ignore the stock price since he will retain sufficient shares (with 10x voting rights if I am understanding correctly) to outvote any board. However, some projections I have seen suggest even the public raise won't be enough for the entire vision (which includes LEO data centers AND trips to the Moon and Mars). That means he will either have to find the revenue or eventually…

He'll be able to raise debt against the massively inflated valuation of the company. SpaceX will have access to far more capital after this than before.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#243
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just made me realise, this is just like the F-35. Its turn around time is ridiculous, it has to be maintained with specialized equipment/hangers, along with external contractor assistance. Compared to the Gripen, as an example, which can land on a freeway and be up in the air again in a few minutes. One was designed to be used in war, in desperate scenarios, with no ability to coddle it. The other, the F-35? Is desig…

Agreed and specifically in the case of the Gripen the “test condition” was “Needs to be serviceable by a few conscripts working under the direction of one person who knows what they are doing”. It’s an extremely different design goal, the US doesn’t mind exotic weapons that require exquisite (and expensive) methods of servicing, they have the budget and the assumption that a well equipped air field will be immaculate…

    > an actual shooting war against near peers
Who could this be? I can only think of Russia or China.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the worst damage on previous flights was often not related to the missing tiles.

I think it was due to voids in the hinge area causing localized plasma impingement and heating. The v3 design has a more continuous shape around the hinges.

Right. I’d have to go back and find explicit statements about the redesigns, but as I recall the v1 Starship had the flaps further forward and lots of tiles missing around the hinges. V2 moved the flaps back so that the hinge is shielded more by the curve of the body, but still had not enough tiles. V3 has almost continuous coverage using much more uniquely curved tiles. They look harder to make but not as bad as the shuttle’s.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#245
post #92

I am just delighted that SpaceX continues with the "good enough" pace of development here, at least at these phases. Rapid iteration of build, test, learn, and improve rather than wait for perfection. They are willing to have "negative outcome learning experiences" to gather data quickly. and, of course, data, data, data. I like it because I know what insane amount of red tape has built up to do anything similar in a…

Shame they're risking that ability with the IPO. We've seen how irrational and ignorant stock traders are from other publicly traded space companies. Even scrubbed launches cause the price to dip.

In an article from the Financial Times [1], Elon Musk will hold "more than 80 per cent of the voting power". This is pretty similar to Mark Zuckerburg's control over Meta. I don't see any risk of SpaceX losing control of their destiny due to short term demands by stockholders.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/00382ab9-3dfe-468c-8966-853cd787d...

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#246
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame they're risking that ability with the IPO. We've seen how irrational and ignorant stock traders are from other publicly traded space companies. Even scrubbed launches cause the price to dip.

Elon negotiated with Nasdaq to automatically accept it in Nasdaq 100 index after 15 days, so the stock traders don't really matter.

I asked about this in previous HN discussions. The old rule: You had to wait three months. Is there a meaningful economic difference between waiting 15 days or ~90 days? I don't see it. (For transparency: I own ETFs that track the S&P 500, which has lots of overlap with Nasdaq 100.) To be clear: OpenAI and Anthropic will sure IPO this year or next and have a similar effect -- they will be (or nearly) trillion dollar market caps upon listing.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#247
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame they're risking that ability with the IPO. We've seen how irrational and ignorant stock traders are from other publicly traded space companies. Even scrubbed launches cause the price to dip.

Doesn't Musk retain full control anyway?

Yes, sources say over 80% of voting power.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#248
post #22

The amount of data they must have at this point running so many of those raptor engines has got to be insane... at least 300+ engine launches now -- wow.

Five years ago SpaceX reported that they had 30000 seconds of test firing time on the Raptor, over 567 engine starts. Since them the program accelerated dramatically. Well over one thousand engines had been produced, and on an average day at McGregor test facility the Raptors are fired for about 600 seconds. That would give about a million seconds over five years. That's a lot for any engine development program.

I found this on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_facilities

    > SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility, McGregor, Texas

    > SpaceX calls the facility the most advanced and active rocket engine test facility in the world, and said that by 2024, over 7,000 tests had been conducted at the facility since it opened, with seven engine test fires on a typical day. Despite its low-profile compared to the company's other facilities, is a critical part of SpaceX's operations, and company president and COO Gwynne Shotwell maintains her primary office in McGregor.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#250
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is designed to be able to break into and defeat modern air defense networks. The gripen is a much less capable non expeditonary platform designed to maximize asymmetric losses if sweden is invaded. As a small country sweden has to follow a porcupine strategy to deter invasion. Presently the actual comparable to the F-35 is attritable drones, which is why every mid-size and major power is developing them.

The Russians have been trying to use attritable drones for years to break down the Ukrainian IADS and have not yet succeeded. Meanwhile the Israeli F35 fleet with no direct American support was able to crack open Iran’s air defenses at the start of the Twelve Day War with relative ease.

The shahed/geran is just a low cost cruise missile. The f35 comparable is a loyal wingman that does manned/unmanned teaming and carries A/A and A/G.
Post reply on HN