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

SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–326 of 326 posts

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#321

Post by imtringued »

simondotau wrote: post #40
ajross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was more that there is a point where (to borrow the software terminology) "iterative design" becomes "death march". Trying a few times in the early days and being willing to throw stuff out and start over is a powerful tool. I think blowing up a handful of rockets is a fine idea. But at some point you have to ask yourself if it will ever work? Why are we on a another engine redesign? Why is this the third i…

So what if they blow up literally 100 rockets, if they can eventually perfect it faster and more cheaply than the traditional approach, recently typified by SLS. SpaceX have already proven that the iterative approach works with Falcon 9, literally the most successful rocket program ever. SpaceX have also proven that this specific Super Heavy/Starship rocket design isn’t a dead end. Criticising them for failing to suc…

The point is that by the 100th test flight, your competitor has already proven the first version of their design to the point of being retired by the second version that has a 55% higher payload capacity and had a history of dozens of moon landings and is busy manufacturing solar panels on the lunar surface using lunar regolith, thanks to the orbital infrastructure for lunar transit that they've painstakingly built over several initial launches is paying off.

Meanwhile SpaceX having proven that the iterative development cycle works by first building a successful rocket and accepting customer payloads as soon as possible and then upgrading the rocket as they flew, fell behind because they decided to abandon their origin and instead try to delay success as much as possible which is antithetical to their origin and the success of the launch vehicle. In their hubris, they doubled down on failure, excusing it at every opportunity, while pretending that this is how Falcon 9 succeeded, which is simply not true. You cannot have a radically different development process and call it the same because you're the same company.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#322

Post by imtringued »

vessenes wrote: post #239
LandoCalrissian wrote: post #237

12 crashes in 5 years to get 1/5th the capacity of a Saturn V. Good job Elon!

? Starship capacity is 150 (reusable) to 250-300 (non-reusable). Saturn V non-reusable capacity was like 140 metric tons or so. Saturn V cost in today’s dollars roughly $1.5bn per launch. Current Falcon heavy launch from SpaceX is in the $20mm cost (to SX) range, for 64 metric tons. So that’s 1,500:40 = slightly less than 40x cost improvement over Saturn V. Starship’s target costs would be $10mm per reusable launch o…

>?

If Starship could meet the payload goals with their V2, they would have retired Falcon 9 already.

>Starship capacity is 150 (reusable) to 250-300 (non-reusable).

Those are aspirational numbers. V1 was supposed to have 50 tons and the actual payload was 0 tons. The confirmed V2 payload was 35 tons (optimistic). V3 has a payload closer to 50 tons than 150 tons.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#323

Post by s1artibartfast »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #315
s1artibartfast wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already have a falcon heavy capacity vehicle - Falcon heavy. I guess I am confused about what you think they would get out of testing with a smaller platform. It seems like most of their focus is specifically figuring out how to make a large platform work. What do you think would translate?

I think that trying to make a large platform work with engines that aren't reliable and on a fuel system that you don't have experience with is a really dumb idea. The raptor engine is a pretty giant advance over the merlin engine and methane seems like a reasonable fuel, but testing of the engine has been consistently held back by issues they're running into due to scaling up the rocket so much. Starship has only ha…

I see where you are coming from. I dont think they are interested in relpacing falcon heavy. I have not heard anything about that. what would the point be?

from my perspective, the large platform is the goal, and engines are in service of that. It is hard to imagine that this would would advance the timeline of startship. It seems like there are substantial technical challenges around the fueling system, as well as re-entry, and potentially engine restart in space. Any of these could be fatal, so they need to start working on them as soon as possible, even if the engines themselves arent perfect.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#325

Post by MrSkelter »

itsthecourier wrote: post #114
globalnode wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The videos are great!, but the rest of it is never going to work lol, just never. Even without a rethink about how to get heavy payloads to another planet this is still good entertainment.

why won't it ever work?

The design is wrong in a fundamental level. The rocket equation says it all. By adding so much extra weight for “reusability” (which they don’t release numbers on in terms of cost and means nothing when the rockets end up in the Indian Ocean) they nerf the performance.

Hence tens of launches to make the moon and zero payload to orbit in a dozen flights.

This forum is full of fanboys but their arguments don’t hold up to reality. Saturn 5 had men on the mock. This much time and this many rockets in. Starship has launched a dozen times for $15B - over a billion per launch - and it hasn’t made orbit.

Say what you want about SLS, it works.

Musk is a conman and Starship is a failure. Like the F-35 supposed libertarians and conservatives will happily throw money at it until it achieves its targets, after multiple redesigns, and then claim success as if the neigh-sayers weren’t right all along.

Re: SpaceX launches Starship v3 rocket

#326

Post by wildzzz »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #251
wildzzz wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gripen is a light multirole aircraft like the F-16. The F-35 is a stealth strike fighter. It requires another level of special care to maintain its stealth performance. If you want mass-produced stealth aircraft, that's what's required. Stealth aircraft up to this point have been in extremely limited numbers at astronomical costs.

The f35 has been produced in sufficient numbers that its purchase price is lower than that of 4th Gen fighters. The maintenance cost is higher though.

True, its really the first mass produced stealth plane. Everything before it has been in pretty limited numbers (even the F-22 didn't break 200). We definitely could build a new non-stealth fighter that's cheap to build and maintain but that's like saying we should design a new incandescent lightbulb, the money spent on development just isn't worth it over just building more F-35s.
Post reply on HN