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

Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#51

Post by ionwake »

ACCount37 wrote: post #48
modeless wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the first time. To some extent it's just how the government contracting game is played. Regrettably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_Federation,_LLC_v....

Notably, Blue Origin got its case thrown out, as NASA has demonstrated that Starship was selected for HLS over National Team option on technical merit. Not that it stopped Bezos from lobbying for a second round of HLS contracts and securing a contract for Blue Origin anyway. But at least that resulted in a second HLS - instead of SpaceX's contract being clawed back.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#52

Post by ffsm8 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
ffsm8 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Because in this context, your question would squarly land around the time before STS-1 was launched in '81 For this to be about space x, you'd have to add some qualifiers - like "privately owned"

> you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Shuttle was reüsable on paper. It couldn’t unlock high-cadence launch because it was not built on an assembly line and had long, manual and error-prone refurbishment requirements. Put practically, one couldn’t build a LEO constellation like Starlink or aim for in-orbit refuelling with the Shuttle. One can do the former with Falcon 9. One can attempt…

I don't disagree, after all, the shuttles booster was(at least to my knowledge) more expensive them the reusable shuttle, but that's once again a qualifier to the statement that - without that qualifier, does continue to point to the shuttle.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#53

Post by parineum »

jltsiren wrote: post #40
panick21_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its not really aspirational so much as it is long term planning. If you 20 years ago had told people the launch rates SpaceX is achieving now people would have laughed you out of the room. And this is not from SpaceX private launch site, but a government owned launch site. SpaceX has really been the driving force behind advancing the nations launch infrastructure and launch practices. I don't see any reason w…

The USSR averaged >1.5 launches/week from 1967 to 1989. SpaceX has exceeded that, but not by a huge margin. Once they start doing daily launches, it will be something people would not have believed 20 years ago. But we are not there yet.

I don't think the comment is just about cadence but also that it's not being achieved by a nation state, at least that's my interpretation.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#54

Post by typpilol »

ionwake wrote: post #51
ACCount37 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notably, Blue Origin got its case thrown out, as NASA has demonstrated that Starship was selected for HLS over National Team option on technical merit. Not that it stopped Bezos from lobbying for a second round of HLS contracts and securing a contract for Blue Origin anyway. But at least that resulted in a second HLS - instead of SpaceX's contract being clawed back.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Isn't Starship doomed anyways because of the refueling issue?

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#55

Post by numpad0 »

uejfiweun wrote: post #14

Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of increase in global temperatures?

They also disrupt ozone layers and leave combustion byproducts in the trail. CO2 raises temperature but dusts reduce temperature, idk which of those effects are dominant or if it makes sense to mandate an additive or something.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#56

Post by ben_w »

typpilol wrote: post #54
ionwake wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Isn't Starship doomed anyways because of the refueling issue?

Starship isn't doomed for that reason, all the technical stuff on starship looks pretty good.

What may doom it is the fact that Elon Musk has pissed off basically everyone, because means that he and his businesses are running into a lot of political danger, so he may find his space stuff banned for non-technical reasons.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#57

Post by ACCount37 »

typpilol wrote: post #54
ionwake wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Isn't Starship doomed anyways because of the refueling issue?

"Doomed"? If you listen to every two-bit "Elon Musk bad" grifter, then, sure.

In truth, Starship needs orbital refueling to get to the Moon - but so does Blue Moon HLS. Artemis depends on someone being able to figure orbital propellant storage and fuel transfer either way.

Which may have been a conscious decision by NASA. Orbital propellant storage and refueling are technologies that unlock a lot of capabilities - so if you get into a silly race with China over who gets to reenact Apollo 11 first, you might as well get that out of it.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#58

Post by phire »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #23
terminalshort wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is yes. Airplanes account for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and rockets use massively more fuel than airplanes per flight (falcon 9 is ~10x fuel capacity of a 737). But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000 commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch rate…

Most of the falcon9 fuel is liquid oxygen. A Falcon9 holds less kerosene than a 737 ER.

You are thinking of the 777 ER, which holds more kerosene than the first stage of Falcon 9 (and slightly less fuel than both stages combined)

The 737 is a much smaller plane, and its fuel capacity is near the ballpark of 10x smaller.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#59

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ffsm8 wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Shuttle was reüsable on paper. It couldn’t unlock high-cadence launch because it was not built on an assembly line and had long, manual and error-prone refurbishment requirements. Put practically, one couldn’t build a LEO constellation like Starlink or aim for in-orbit refuelling with the Shuttle. One can do the former with Falcon 9. One can attempt…

I don't disagree, after all, the shuttles booster was(at least to my knowledge) more expensive them the reusable shuttle, but that's once again a qualifier to the statement that - without that qualifier, does continue to point to the shuttle.

> without that qualifier, does continue to point to the shuttle

The qualifier is only semantically meaningful. The engineering benefits one gets from reusability--low costs and high cadence--weren't there for the Space Shuttle.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#60

Post by panick21_ »

typpilol wrote: post #54
ionwake wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Isn't Starship doomed anyways because of the refueling issue?

Anti-SpaceX people always do this "Wherever SpaceX is, go to Step +1, claim this step is impossible and therefore SpaceX is doomed". They have been doing this for 15 years.
Post reply on HN