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

SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 431 posts

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#371

Post by kortex »

freemint wrote: post #344
jmyeet wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is generally (but not always) false. SpaceX has been negotiating a lot of their commercial contracts in a vehicle agnostic fashion. Here's another way of putting that: SpaceX has designed it so F9 and Starship payloads will be interchangeable. That's not quite the same thing. You can't just take an F9 payload and bolt it on top of an Ariane rocket. > Starship is being designed with the intent that it will cann…

I find that utterly mad why would you combine multiple small launches into a big one? The tyranny of rocket equation suggests to me that you will have to burn a lot more to lift a lot more things to burn for the payloads that would have been in a different rocket. I would like to be shown the math that it actually takes less fuel with a bigger rocket.

Economies of scale at every stage of the game. Fuel is basically the cheapest part of a launch. Last I checked, the cost of maintaining infrastructure was on roughly the same order as the fuel per launch. More launches per site drives the cost-per down.

Reusability is a spectrum. Falcon requires a nontrivial amount of inspection and refurb between launches, while Starship is aiming for jetliner levels of prep.

Musk is also aiming to drive down the capex costs as well. There's less complexity for unmanned cargo hoist missions. I think the target for Starship is low tens of millions USD, basically cheaper than Falcon Heavy, but more reusable, with more capacity.

I think the only thing that's not cheaper, is liquid methane is a bit more expensive per kJ. They are roughly the same price per kg, with RP-1 being more energy dense. But then again, I could see SpaceX vertically integrating and driving that cost down too.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#372

Post by tigershark »

qayxc wrote: post #335
tigershark wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, OneWeb didn’t do anything remotely comparable. Starlink satellites are currently more than all the human satellites ever launched. Smaller in scope is a euphemism, you are comparing a mere 650 satellites with 42k, 2 orders of magnitude more.

There aren't 42k Starlink satellites in orbit. It's about 1,500 active satellites versus 600 + ~50 spares - quite comparable.

The plan is for 42k satellites, currently there are still more Starlink satellites than all the other satellites ever launched.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#373

Post by panick21_ »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #55

I think Gwynne Shotwell is the rather unsung hero keeping SpaceX running correctly day by day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

She is not really unsong at all. She is very, very recognized in the industry and everybody that is seriously interested in space travel knows here. She has been on my list of influential woman and given many talks and speeches all over the place.

Of course she is not Musk famous, but nobody is.

People who hate Musk sometimes try to claim all SpaceX is because of her. That is certainty wrong and she herself would not agree to that. But she is certainty amazing at what she does and starting out doing sales she increased here power and responsibility over the years until she was the clear 2nd in command.

She allows Musk to focus on the new development, innovation and strategy.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#374

Post by panick21_ »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #298
imglorp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last failure in flight was 2015. Since then there were 120 successful launches and no failures. There was one payload lost in 2016 during a static fire test.

Thanks for the update. Did you get your count from this Wiki page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... I'm not sure if that is a reliable source. (Please don't read that comment as a general commentary about Wiki!)

In terms of rocket launches Wikipedia is very good. I certainty don't know about a better source. Maybe SpaceX has a list public somewhere but I would not sure that is as up to date and detailed as Wikipedia.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#375

Post by panick21_ »

jmyeet wrote: post #81

The real problem for Starship (IMHO) is Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now the most reliable launch vehicle ever created. With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less by now and likely to continue to drop. F9 can deliver ~22t to LEO and smaller payloads to geosynchronous orbit. The payloads F9 can't deliver are quite small. What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch…

> With reuse the may well be $10m per launch or even less

That is a very low estimate. Most people assume more like $20m per launch. Some say $15m.

You still need to manufacture a complex upper stage and complex engine. Reuse of the Merlin is not perfect. It involves a lot of transportation. It involves having a substantial navy and so on.

All in all including fix cost, I would say the can't make it much cheaper.

To get cheaper a next generation rocket is needed.

> What people forget is that payloads are deeply coupled to their launch vehicles. The launch vehicle will dictate the maximum weight and dimensions of the payload. You can't just take a payload designed for one vehicle and put it on another.

While somewhat true, its not universal. Many adopters are standards. And as long as the conditions are not so different. Like if you move between a liquid and a solid rocket, the environment is not that different.

> The evidence for this is the relatively few Falcon Heavy launches we've had and are planned.

There are 5 Falcon Heavy launches planned.

And the thing with Falcon Heavy is that most payloads are volume constraint, and the Falcon Heavy doesn't actually increase that over Falcon 9 while being strictly more expensive.

At the end of the day, the worst case is Starship is a marginally cheaper Falcon 9.

> What else will it be used for? That's a bit of an open question.

Certainty a problem but only once you get to the very high launch rate musk wants. If on a per launch bases its cheaper then Falcon 9, it will have a reason to exist. And from there you can hopefully increase rates over time as the industry takes it into account.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#376

Post by panick21_ »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #223
wahern wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that's just going to take a long time, particularly if F9 is, say, sub-$15m per launch. 1) SpaceX isn't a public company; among other benefits, there's substantially less pressure to maximize profits. 2) Starship launch costs don't need to compete with F9, they only need to compete with the other competition. Also, it's worth repeating that the goal of this entire endeavor is reaching Mars. The above state of a…

"The above state of affairs isn't a coincidence, but a very deliberate part of Musk's plan." To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, and call whatever you hit the target

There is literally a public record that is well document about this strategy. Keeping the company private. Developing the larger vehicle. And so on.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#377

Post by panick21_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #249
snek_case wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody seems to think about space stations. You could launch much bigger modules with Starship, and many more of them, so you could create a much larger space station for a cheaper price.

Instead we are intent on crashing the space station into the ocean.

NASA has a commercial station program ongoing and they are handing out contracts.

BlueOrigin suggested station does have modules far larger then current ISS, but its attended to be launched on New Glenn, not Starship.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#378

Post by ethbr0 »

beambot wrote: post #318
codesnik wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just a bit of a fan of Elon Musk. It won't happen by 2028 of course. Price isn't a problem at all at scale, but regulatory pressure will be. If a cargo point-to-point flight will happen, it already will be something, but I don't know of any cargo, military included, that requires such a speed.

You can't think of any military use for 100 tons of cargo delivered anywhere in the world in 45min? Lats a pretty acute lack of imagination. DoD is already funding it too: https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-signs-a-deal-to-rocket-mili...

At the minimum: fuel.

In 1940, the French lost half their strongest armored formations, and subsequently their country, through an inability to supply fuel in a timely manner under combat conditions.

An F-35A is a ~$150M weapon system. An F/A-18E/F ~$60M. Both useless without fuel.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#379

Post by panick21_ »

jmyeet wrote: post #139
WalterBright wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What wouldn't it be useful for? 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope 3. build a base on the moon 4. make a mission to Mars possible

> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes One of the things I'd dearly love to see in lifetime is a return to the ice giants (ie Uranus and Neptune). We've only visited once and it was in the 1980s with the limited tech of Voyager 1 and 2. Think of what we could learn with a Cassini-level mission and Cassini itself is now ~14 years old. But these missions take a long time to develop. We actually have a…

> IMHO a manned mission to Mars makes almost zero sense

That's certainty not an opinion most people interest in space agree with.

And Musk doesn't want to start with a colony.

Re: SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

#380

Post by vimy »

qayxc wrote: post #337
vimy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pentagon wants to use Starship for military transport. Getting troops anywhere on earth within an hour would be a huge advantage.

That wouldn't be possible - first, Starship cannot take off without significant support infrastructure, so it'd be a one-way trip. Additionally, have you seen the hatch on the Lunar Starship? That thing is ~30m above ground and only has a small platform. Loading and unloading that thing would be slow and dangerous compared to simply dropping cargo from a flying aircraft that doesn't even need to touch down or just dr…

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/04/us-military-rocket-cargo-pro... I remembered wrong, they are looking at more than just Starship. You’re right but I’m assuming they want a militarized version that solves these problems.
Post reply on HN