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

SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#321

Post by fluoridation »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #319
fluoridation wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The alternative (dictated by physics) is that we expend the whole thing. We can also, you know, not. We could put that money to something here on Earth instead of burning it up.

The money is not "burned up" - it is spent right here on Earth. It's paid to extremely skilled engineers, technicians and scientists. The technology developed for doing such a difficult task will inevitably benefit all of humanity. It did so for Apollo. It will again in the future. https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...

>The money is not "burned up" - it is spent right here on Earth.

If the idea was not clearly conveyed then let me try again: the money is spent building things that are intended to be destroyed (in order to fulfill their function, but nevertheless), when it could be spent building things that are intended to last.

>The technology developed for doing such a difficult task will inevitably benefit all of humanity.

I've heard this refrain several times. Please name a technology that was developed for the space program and that would have otherwise not been developed.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#322

Post by bookofjoe »

sho_hn wrote: post #216
GMoromisato wrote: post #169

Starship is like AI/LLMs in that success would revolutionize the world, but technological failure is very possible. And despite the confident predictions on the internets, we don't know which it's going to be. After the Shuttle program ended in failure, work on reusable launch systems stopped for decades. A similar thing would happen if Starship fails. Space would remain the province of the military and large governm…

> After the Shuttle program ended in failure, work on reusable launch systems stopped for decades. A similar thing would happen if Starship fails. Space would remain the province of the military and large governments. I really don't agree with this take. It may appear as if SpaceX is the only game in town, but in reality a lot of this technology is commoditized now, and space is as diversified and vibrant as ever. Th…

>It may appear as if SpaceX is the only game in town, but in reality a lot of this technology is commoditized now, and space is as diversified and vibrant as ever.

Really?

SpaceX conducts more than half the world's rocket launches and deploys 80% of the world's satellites.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#323

Post by ActorNightly »

avmich wrote: post #194
ActorNightly wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Starship is such a fantastically dumb idea I'm sure there could be better rocket configurations than Starship - but so far Starship is better than other existing schemas. Starship is really good comparing to others - getting the cheapest kilogram to orbit cost in perspective.

As I said in my other comments, just cause something is sold at a lower cost doesn't mean its optimal.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#324

Post by ethbr1 »

Sparyjerry wrote: post #308
rozab wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, there is no demand to get that much stuff into space. Falcon 9 has massively brought down the cost per orbit, and even with the whole world as a captive market, every university in every country putting up cubesats, they still don't have nearly enough payloads to make the economies of scale kick in. Hence Starlink. The majority of SpaceX payload mass has been Starlink, something nobody was even asking f…

Demand comes at a curve, the cheaper you make it, the more demand there will be. The demand for satellites and eventually human travel is practically infinite if the cost is low enough. If Starship cuts cost to orbit by at minimum 1/3 and at maximum 1/100th demand will skyrocket (pun intended) either way.

The key step change for space demand is probably when launch cost decreases (in terms of $/mass) and availability increases (in terms of max freq of launches) enough so as to make private industry space resource extraction and processing profitable.

Once there's a usable supply chain at the top of the gravity well (or on bodies with lower gravity), a lot of other launch demand is unlocked, because you can do truly interesting things (colonization et al).

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#325

Post by ethbr1 »

ls612 wrote: post #292
rozab wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, there is no demand to get that much stuff into space. Falcon 9 has massively brought down the cost per orbit, and even with the whole world as a captive market, every university in every country putting up cubesats, they still don't have nearly enough payloads to make the economies of scale kick in. Hence Starlink. The majority of SpaceX payload mass has been Starlink, something nobody was even asking f…

Starlink is both a successful commercial service making money hand over fist and a vital strategic asset for the United States. Put simply its one of the most transformative infrastructure projects of the 21st century. SpaceX found a winner and is doubling down on it I don't blame them.

Just wait until the US' low orbit sensing/networking satellite cloud is fully deployed (with radar, GMTI, AMTI).

That's the vital strategic asset, because suddenly the US will have ASAT-tolerant space sensing capability (by virtue of decentralization and numbers) while other countries will still have exquisite assets.

Starlink is interesting, but the above is a game changer at the level of when the Key Holes were launched or the GPS constellation was completed.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#326

Post by ethbr1 »

WalterBright wrote: post #217
GMoromisato wrote: post #169

Starship is like AI/LLMs in that success would revolutionize the world, but technological failure is very possible. And despite the confident predictions on the internets, we don't know which it's going to be. After the Shuttle program ended in failure, work on reusable launch systems stopped for decades. A similar thing would happen if Starship fails. Space would remain the province of the military and large governm…

With the ability to lift more weight, it also means that the travel time to Mars could be shortened considerably (by using more propellant). The minimum propellant travel times are a major barrier.

Question for the audience, because I've always been curious.

Have there ever been any historical plans for a permanently-transiting interplanetary craft?

A large craft is built, accelerated up to speed (since time wouldn't be a factor, high Isp/low-thrust engines could be used), then left looping between Earth and X at constant high speed, with smaller (and shorter-term) craft accelerating to meet it (e.g. underway replenishment with crew and fuel transfer) or decelerating at the destination.

Heck, if you've got something optionally-crewed, you could have it continuously burning for years to build up speed.

Or do solar system astrodynamics make waiting and then burning like hell from orbital speeds during optimal transit windows more efficient?

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#327

Post by schiffern »

ethbr1 wrote: post #326
WalterBright wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the ability to lift more weight, it also means that the travel time to Mars could be shortened considerably (by using more propellant). The minimum propellant travel times are a major barrier.

Question for the audience, because I've always been curious. Have there ever been any historical plans for a permanently-transiting interplanetary craft? A large craft is built, accelerated up to speed (since time wouldn't be a factor, high Isp/low-thrust engines could be used), then left looping between Earth and X at constant high speed, with smaller (and shorter-term) craft accelerating to meet it (e.g. underway r…

Yup, someone thought of it. That man's name? Buzz Aldrin.

https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/aldrin-ma...

https://web.archive.org/web/20101102073607if_/http://buzzald...

It is indeed more efficient to perform the usual Hohmann transfer, but the advantage of the Aldrin Cycler concept is you can accelerate a large vehicle once and then 'amortize' that over multiple trips.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#328

Post by ahazred8ta »

ethbr1 wrote: post #326
WalterBright wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the ability to lift more weight, it also means that the travel time to Mars could be shortened considerably (by using more propellant). The minimum propellant travel times are a major barrier.

Question for the audience, because I've always been curious. Have there ever been any historical plans for a permanently-transiting interplanetary craft? A large craft is built, accelerated up to speed (since time wouldn't be a factor, high Isp/low-thrust engines could be used), then left looping between Earth and X at constant high speed, with smaller (and shorter-term) craft accelerating to meet it (e.g. underway r…

The problem with an Aldrin Cycler https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aldrin_cycler is that you pretty much have to leave it unoccupied for several years at a time because the planets are in the wrong place on most orbits. Then after 20-30 years the gaskets start to leak and the electronics get glitchy. Look up how much elbow grease it takes to replace the expired components on the ISS over a 5 year period.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#329

Post by ahazred8ta »

lordofgibbons wrote: post #193
GMoromisato wrote: post #169

Starship is like AI/LLMs in that success would revolutionize the world, but technological failure is very possible. And despite the confident predictions on the internets, we don't know which it's going to be. After the Shuttle program ended in failure, work on reusable launch systems stopped for decades. A similar thing would happen if Starship fails. Space would remain the province of the military and large governm…

> After the Shuttle program ended in failure, work on reusable launch systems stopped for decades Did it really stop for decades? I think SpaceX and Blue Origin were both already working on re-usable launch systems around that time

In the 80s, the reusable spacecraft people got sidetracked into SSTO designs, which have horribly small payload fractions. The Delta Clipper and DC-X families were meant to be reusable, but they never scaled up to something that could deliver decent payloads to orbit.

Re: SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight

#330

Post by Culonavirus »

dmix wrote: post #196
Culonavirus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you said, flight 11 has the last V2 and since V3 is not compatible with the existing pad A (only the new pad B that is being finished atm), it would be a nice opportunity to try the ship catch because cratering the old pad A and/or its tower wouldn't be that much of a deal. The entire Pad A has to be replaced anyways.

What did they change about the pad between 2 and 3?

The new pad (pad B and all pads going forward) is completely different than pad A. There's now a flame trench instead of just a steel plate, the square shaped pad structure has water cooled top, etc. but specifically "backwards incompatible" changes would I guess be the pad having two booster QDs instead of one, the tower being a bit higher, the chopsticks a lot shorter, ship QD is also higher (i think)?
Post reply on HN