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

Starship V3

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#361

Post by xiphias2 »

kortilla wrote: post #288
childintime wrote: post #286

These datacenters in space will become space junk. Doesn't seem to be sustainable. With a million of these it's hard to imagine why this would be a good idea, and it starts looking like insanity.

Nope, they will be in a low earth orbit that will decay and enter the atmosphere without maintenance burns

Not really, if you look at the plans, only a few hundred thousand satellites were planned in LEO, and millions over the Chinese satellites.

There will be a collision at some point, there's no real-time communication between USA and China satellite launches.

Re: Starship V3

#362

Post by svantana »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #332
svantana wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno if it's that clear cut. In space with a shadowless orbit you get 5x more solar energy per day than the sunniest place on earth. And it's always on, so you don't need batteries. Also, the lack of gravity and weather means that the structures can be a lot more brittle - I imagine something like a gpu on the back of a large thin film solar panel, where the panel also acts as heatsink. Could be pretty cheap!

Its not always on. Its only 'always' on if you would orbit the sun which starlink can't do, it has to orbit the earth. This only works in a certain constelation which would create a halo around our planet, without clear understanding what even would do. The more power you consume, the more power you need to dissipate. These constelations wouldn't be small at all. It would also take a interesting solution to be able t…

A polar low earth orbit can be always-on (no earth shadow). Each satellite will be in thermal equilibrium, around 10°C. Catastrophic destruction from micrometeoroids is rare. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I don't see any dealbreakers in the math/science.

Re: Starship V3

#363

Post by simonh »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #309
kortilla wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, they will be in a low earth orbit that will decay and enter the atmosphere without maintenance burns

And it will impact negatively humanity's health. https://engineerine.com/starlink-satellites-harming-human/

Oh, wow. I was assuming it might be about toxins released when they burn up, which seems implausible, but radio waves fry your brain? Seriously?

Re: Starship V3

#364

Post by b112 »

yourusername wrote: post #282
b112 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally enormous problems powering AI data centers on the Earth right now. No, we don't have the power on Earth. In terms of launch cost, Starship makes launch cost negligible. Some estimates are that it will cost less to launch a tonne to orbit, than to ship across the US by train. Even if this figure is slightly low, that has nothing compared to the cost of real estate, construction costs, all of the bu…

>In terms of launch cost, Starship makes launch cost negligible. Some estimates are that it will cost less to launch a tonne to orbit, than to ship across the US by train. So in this world vision obviously companies will start shipping iron ore and coal by starship from one coast to the other because it will be cheaper than trains. In fact all trucking worldwide would be replaced by space ships because they would be…

I didn't say it was cheaper to ship coast to coast by starship. I said some estimates predict it cheaper to ship to orbit, than train coast to coast.

You're also mysteriously adding in build cost for starship, and not the train. Starship is reusable.

To orbit

Think of how short a distance "to orbit" is.

Re: Starship V3

#365

Post by notahacker »

pveierland wrote: post #359
notahacker wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that they're absolutely not in isolation from other challenges because designing something to radiate heat at maximum possible radiative cooling efficiency is not considered to be a problem, solving the unit economics of launching the required radiator tonnage and burning 100 tonnes of rocket fuel to per tonne launched that's the problem. Cutting edge stuff like in-space refuelling and modular in-space r…

> The point is that they're absolutely not in isolation from other challenges because designing something to radiate heat at maximum possible radiative cooling efficiency is not considered to be a problem, solving the unit economics of launching the required radiators tonnage and burning 100 tonnes of rocket fuel to per tonne launched that's the problem. I was pointing out relative coupling, not absolute coupling. Th…

> I was pointing out relative coupling, not absolute coupling. The coupling between the different design decisions involved in Terafab or Starship seems far greater as there are so many design levels to unite jointly - while figuring out the structural and thermal design of these satellites appears to be something that to a greater degree can be resolved with less design constrained coupling - i.e. making it more feasible to figure out with a lower number of people.

Sure, but you're missing the point which people familiar with spacecraft systems engineering are actually making, which isn't "radiators are a problem because they're hard to design" but that "radiators are a problem because it's hard to design everything else to offset their relatively large mass budget, and thus every other aspect of designing and operating an ODC as a profitable alternative to terrestrial ODCs is coupled to the theoretical limits to how low the radiator launch mass can be". The number of engineers required to design radiators themselves is totally irrelevant, but you can't isolate the radiators' required launch mass from the overall concept of operations and operating economics.

Re: Starship V3

#366

Post by damnitbuilds »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #252

Quick update for the folks passionate about space things (since this thread is full of unrelated comments): V3 is their first Starship family big upgrade, containing lots of learnings from previous tests, and the big engine upgrades. V3 engines are the first iteration of a production engine, with lots of sensors and auxiliary systems integrated into the engine itself. Besides the improvements in thrust, they've strea…

"New this launch will be a few sats that have comms & cameras on them."

Is that confirmed ? Will be truly amazing to see.

Re: Starship V3

#367

Post by damnitbuilds »

BoxedEmpathy wrote: post #52

I really hope I get to see a permanent settlement on Mars or the moon. I don't care who settles it I just want to see humanity reach for the stars.

There's a whole book positing that a permanent settlement on Mars is unlikely to work, and I have not seen their arguments debunked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars

Re: Starship V3

#368

Post by damnitbuilds »

Taniwha wrote: post #262
beambot wrote: post #32

Those Raptor 3 engines are a thing of beautiful simplicity compared to their forebears...

I'm not sure they're all that simpler, the basic plumbing probably hasn't changed much, it's just that modern fabrication tech means you can hide all the complexity inside

A single metal piece that contains plumbing inside it is simpler than a metal piece with attached pipes for that plumbing.

Re: Starship V3

#369

Post by yourusername »

b112 wrote: post #364
yourusername wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In terms of launch cost, Starship makes launch cost negligible. Some estimates are that it will cost less to launch a tonne to orbit, than to ship across the US by train. So in this world vision obviously companies will start shipping iron ore and coal by starship from one coast to the other because it will be cheaper than trains. In fact all trucking worldwide would be replaced by space ships because they would be…

I didn't say it was cheaper to ship coast to coast by starship. I said some estimates predict it cheaper to ship to orbit, than train coast to coast. You're also mysteriously adding in build cost for starship, and not the train. Starship is reusable. To orbit Think of how short a distance "to orbit" is.

>Think of how short a distance "to orbit" is.

7.8 km/s delta-v, that's quite a lot.

>You're also mysteriously adding in build cost for starship, and not the train. Starship is reusable.

Even if both are reusable a train will last decades and a starship will be lucky to get a few dozen launches, which is still amazing mind you. Maybe it is my lack of imagination but i just can't see how a diesel engine that pulls a metal box at 60mph will cost more per trip than a rocket that has to accelerate to 18000 mph. Even just fueling: a train runs on diesel which is easy to handle and everywhere. Starship requires cryogenic fuel and oxidizer which is inherently more difficult to handle.

Re: Starship V3

#370

Post by damnitbuilds »

laughing_man wrote: post #266
inglor_cz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engines for New Glenn ain't bad either. Competition does improve products.

New Glenn's engines are quite a bit less efficient than those at SpaceX. Lower chamber pressures, lower thrust:weight ratio, and they're partial flow staged combustion. I assume BO will increase their performance over time, but for now they company is about a decade behind SpaceX.

Spacex's work is out there ( and I am grateful for the excitement that generates ) but BO work in the shadows, surprising us sometimes with major advances.

I suspect BO not as far behind as you think.

Post reply on HN