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

Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#261

Post by pfdietz »

zaroth wrote: post #205
jillesvangurp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane is about 900-1500$ / ton. About 1000 tons is used for the launch in addition to 3600 tons of lox. That should be a bit cheaper than methane per ton. Ballpark, the propellant might cost around 2M$. A modern airliner on a long flight might burn around 80 tons of kerosene. It's slightly cheaper than methane. Call it 75-80K$.

Is the $1000/ton a law a physics, or could that ever possibly scale up and come down an order of magnitude?

There are no dollars in the laws of physics. It's connected ultimately to productivity of all the activities involved, and there's no obvious upper bound to productivity.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#263

Post by systemvoltage »

nomilk wrote: post #225
systemvoltage wrote: post #154

Closeup of chopsticks as they were catching the booster, best clip from Everyday Astronaut's livestream: https://x.com/kagurazakimoto/status/1845447451592765820

I'd never considered a 70m tall chunk of mostly metal "agile", but the way it's controlled into the arms so precisely is something to behold.

Do you know what the entire booster is hanging off of? It can't be the fins. How is the load transferred to the arms?

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#264

Post by ackbar03 »

skizm wrote: post #252

This was insanely cool to watch. And on the first try! As a complete lay person with little to no physics knowledge: what stops the use of something dumb like a parachute, or even wings and landing gear, to "land" the booster? I assume it is impractical (since they don't do it), but what are the actual particulars that stop it from working? While super cool to watch, it seems crazy that plucking it out of the air lik…

physics?

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#265

Post by rexreed »

fumeux_fume wrote: post #214

[flagged]

Sounds like you didn't live through the Microsoft product launches of the late 1990s. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Same stuff, different day. You might enjoy this reminiscent remix, which also features a SpaceX-ish rocket as well (not bad foresight for a video created in 2009): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRm0NDo1CiY&t=106

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#267

Post by throw4950sh06 »

skizm wrote: post #252

This was insanely cool to watch. And on the first try! As a complete lay person with little to no physics knowledge: what stops the use of something dumb like a parachute, or even wings and landing gear, to "land" the booster? I assume it is impractical (since they don't do it), but what are the actual particulars that stop it from working? While super cool to watch, it seems crazy that plucking it out of the air lik…

At the very least, reducing the number of concerns on the rocket is definitely worthwhile. They are going to have an engine in any case, and using just that and nothing else on the rocket itself simplifies testing and reduces risk. The tower can have a separate testing and there's no way something that happens on the way to orbit and back breaks the tower.

Wings, parachute, etc... All very easy to break or burn at hypersonic speeds, and very chaotic to control. It probably (very probably) wouldn't be possible to land back exactly where the rocket launched on wings or chutes - that would probably need an extremely long and wide runway, but compare the size of Starship to the Space Shuttle... It's like braking a toy car vs braking an actual truck.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#268

Post by ivandenysov »

skizm wrote: post #252

This was insanely cool to watch. And on the first try! As a complete lay person with little to no physics knowledge: what stops the use of something dumb like a parachute, or even wings and landing gear, to "land" the booster? I assume it is impractical (since they don't do it), but what are the actual particulars that stop it from working? While super cool to watch, it seems crazy that plucking it out of the air lik…

It mostly comes down to reducing extra weight. You have to carry those wings and landing gear upwards, which reduces useful payload weight. But having the booster right where it started also helps with reusability. No need to transport the booster from a landing strip back to the starting table

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#269

Post by nemo44x »

max_ wrote: post #201

At this point I am finding it hard to hate Elon Musk. For everything he does that has annoyed me (like Gloating at people being bombed in the middle east) — his business acumen has completely unlocked for people what they we thought was impossible.

Yes he’s amazing and we’re lucky to live in a time and place where he can lead thousands of people that can do these things. He’s an example of what’s possible by a capitalist and how capitalism empowers individuals to shape the world and make it better for everyone. So naturally there’s a group of people trying to stop him due to envy and other copes.

Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]

#270

Post by murderfs »

skizm wrote: post #252

This was insanely cool to watch. And on the first try! As a complete lay person with little to no physics knowledge: what stops the use of something dumb like a parachute, or even wings and landing gear, to "land" the booster? I assume it is impractical (since they don't do it), but what are the actual particulars that stop it from working? While super cool to watch, it seems crazy that plucking it out of the air lik…

> As a complete lay person with little to no physics knowledge: what stops the use of something dumb like a parachute, or even wings and landing gear, to "land" the booster?

The main advantage is that you don't need to spend any of your payload mass budget on a parachute, or wings and landing gear. The secondary advantage over a parachute is that you don't need to fish it out of seawater and make your refurbishment process more of a pain in the ass.

Post reply on HN