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

351–360 of 363 posts

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

#351

Post by avmich »

metabagel wrote: post #222
avmich wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's assuming it can carry the payload envisioned, which seems iffy at this point.

> That's assuming it can carry the payload envisioned, which seems iffy at this point.

Envisioned payload? What do you mean?

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

#352

Post by avmich »

ActorNightly wrote: post #323
avmich wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

No, Starship isn't optimal, it's just better than existing alternative by this specific criteria. If you need some other quality, you may rationally choose something else.

The point was that the price of kilogram to orbit is an important criteria for many customers, so they logically choose Starship.

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

#353

Post by avmich »

boxed wrote: post #341
avmich wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.

He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

> He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

That would be a strange evaluation.

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

#354

Post by boxed »

avmich wrote: post #353
boxed wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

> He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P That would be a strange evaluation.

I've seen worse from SpaceX haters. I've had a "conversation" here on HN by someone who claimed that SpaceX doesn't land boosters anymore for example. Conspiracy theories basically.

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

#355

Post by boxed »

anonymars wrote: post #343
boxed wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The test flights include R&D. The ~1b per flight of Saturn V was excluding R&D when the program was churning along. I guess you could argue that it's never meaningful to compare anything that isn't a commodity though, which certainly isn't the case here. But I find that silly.

That's not what I'm saying. We are comparing 1 billion per operational Saturn V flight to...what? There are no operational Starship flights to compare with. What sense is there in comparing the cost of manned flights to the moon and back with unmanned suborbital test flights?

Saturn V did have at least one suborbital mission with Spacelab though. So not as hard to compare as you say.

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

#356

Post by dragonwriter »

boxed wrote: post #355
anonymars wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I'm saying. We are comparing 1 billion per operational Saturn V flight to...what? There are no operational Starship flights to compare with. What sense is there in comparing the cost of manned flights to the moon and back with unmanned suborbital test flights?

Saturn V did have at least one suborbital mission with Spacelab though. So not as hard to compare as you say.

Spacelab was carried on Shuttle flights, Skylab was launched on a modified Saturn V. And it was low orbit, not suborbital.

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

#357

Post by jibal »

bilsbie wrote: post #68
nerdjon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I am finding myself wrestling with a lot right now. On the one hand I am a major space nerd and I see the value of what SpaceX is doing. Especially with it really seeming like no one is anywhere near their level. What kind of scientific advancements will be possible once this thing can be used normally and launches like this become commonplace. But at the same time it is impossible to ignore the Elo…

What if the guy who built the world’s best rocket from scratch, who popularized EVs and brought self-driving tech to the masses, who built brain computer interfaces, dug tunnels, started OpenAI and PayPal… What if he’s not an idiot? What if we should actually be listening to what this guy says and considering it? What if he has the same ability to see what nobody else can see early on in politics… As he’s shown acros…

What if it's idiotic to focus on his intelligence while ignoring the fact that he's an amoral sociopathic cryptofascist bigot whose main concern in life is becoming a trillionaire regardless of what that takes, now that he's realized that terraforming Mars is out of reach (his previous ambition)?

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

#358

Post by grapesodaaaaa »

antoniuschan99 wrote: post #207
jmyeet wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing Falcon 9 to Starship is a dangerous mistake. First, the time frames are way off. Development of the Falcon 9 took ~5 years (2005 to 2010). The first reused booster came much later (2017?). Second, Starship is much more expensive for each launch attempt than Falcon 9 ever was. Third, Starship is significantly more complicated technology-wise, being methane based. There are reasons to do this but it then requ…

Just look at their launch cadence for falcon 9. https://www.spacex.com/launches It’s a bunch of starlink missions. With some dedicated and rideshare missions.

It’s worth mentioning that one of the reasons the cadence is so high for Starlink is because customers buy the boosters, and they can be re-used for many Starlink launches.

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

#359

Post by iwontberude »

boxed wrote: post #341
avmich wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.

He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

Bingo they aren’t anywhere near the solution to return the investment and will be raising debt or begging for more government money. They will be (progressively) nationalized to justify the additional cash infusions to keep the mission from being a complete failure. NASA wants their moon base I guess.

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

#360

Post by natch »

ActorNightly wrote: post #350
natch wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll just leave this here for others to look at since I assume you’ll find some excuse to dismiss it. https://x.com/niccruzpatane/status/1960865882240115052?s=46&...

I won't dismiss it, because Im not a conservative and my arguments aren't ideological. ill just tell you why its wrong from a technical level. >Extra sensors add cost to the system, and more importantly complexity. They make the software task harder, and increase the cost of all the data pipelines. They add risk and complexity to the supply chain and manufacturing. Yeah if you treat them like inputs to neural network…

Thanks for the actual reply! I was pleasantly surprised. You are really all in on Kalman filtering! I don’t doubt you, but I think we all should be cheering for Elon, since unlike legacy auto, he’s leading the charge to give less money to the likes of MBS. If his team can figure out FSD (maybe with your help!) that will be a very good thing.
Post reply on HN