Live data from Hacker News

The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

wsj.com

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#81
post #78
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orbital compute presents a pretty good physical security model as well (X-37B notwithstanding). I've often thought it would be fun to build a smallsat providing crypto functions (signatures, certificates, message passing).

There's a lot of investment and development going on in asat tech...

I could imagine. An unhardened satellite is going to be a pretty soft target for EMP/laser attacks.

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#82
> water-fueled space transport

After watching an Elon Musk interview in front of his starship he was saying - If anyone can show us that aerospikes are the way to go then please, do it. It'll be a gift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ36Kt7UVg

This other company Arca has a 25-video series starting 2 years ago about their journey to build a hydrogen/oxygen (water) areospike engine. Really worth the watch. Skip to the last videos if you want to see live engine tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hnImvI2gw

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you severely underestimate the usefulness of gold in electronics.

You're ignoring the problem. The electronics industry would love it if they could gold plate every single PCB but for that to happen the price of gold would have to drop. Gold mining is probably only profitable at current gold prices so the electronics industry won't benefit from expensive space gold.

> Gold mining is probably only profitable at current gold prices

There is no reason to make this assumption.

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#84
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t think robotic tech changes anything about the core of space flight, I just don’t know what to tell you.

Okay, what it changes? I know the talking points(yes, it is cheaper but not in order of magnitude) but where's the substance here? If it's the cool videos, that could have been done in CGI too. What is the new things, the thing that is a leap forward? Sure, it is nice to end the reliance on Russia but that's a political advancement. If it's the wild stock market, you can do it with cryptocurrencies too(maybe rockets…

[deleted]

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#85
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t think robotic tech changes anything about the core of space flight, I just don’t know what to tell you.

Okay, what it changes? I know the talking points(yes, it is cheaper but not in order of magnitude) but where's the substance here? If it's the cool videos, that could have been done in CGI too. What is the new things, the thing that is a leap forward? Sure, it is nice to end the reliance on Russia but that's a political advancement. If it's the wild stock market, you can do it with cryptocurrencies too(maybe rockets…

IMO what all these commenters and mainstream narratives miss is: cheap launch cost enabling space based industry and development. Once you move resource extraction of space based resources and industrial production INTO space it’s game over. The solar systems vast riches are available. Mars and the moon value in the long term is their relative shallow gravity wells.

I don’t know how robotics plays in here, that’s the innovation to come.

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#86
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in a sense it’s a steam engine powering a space ship.

Wonder what an effective steam rocket in lower atmosphere would look like.

SSME’s? Or does it count if the water started off in separate pieces?

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#87
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not likely to survive orbit deployment, unfortunately.

Long term or short term? I don't need a century-level deployment, but I would like to see how long it would survive.

It would probably be cheaper and easier to test at a terrestrial cyclotron

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#88
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://momentus.space/development/ it looks like they are using a microwave generator with water to generate a plasma thruster. The technical name seem to be microwave electro-thermal thruster (MET). There is more info on the thurster in the abstract here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1420619

How does the specific impulse compare to the current state of the art hall effect / ion thrusters that use xenon as a fuel?

Probably worse. Raw steam has an ISP of around 100s. There was an experimental ion thruster from U Michigan a few years ago that got that up to nearly 700s. Some of the more efficient ion thrusters are like 20,000s (although they're operating at a different scale so idk if that's an apples to apples comparison)

Edit- I looked at the Momentus paper linked above and apparently their ISP is 800s

Re: The New ‘Gold Rush in Space’

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the specific impulse compare to the current state of the art hall effect / ion thrusters that use xenon as a fuel?

Probably worse. Raw steam has an ISP of around 100s. There was an experimental ion thruster from U Michigan a few years ago that got that up to nearly 700s. Some of the more efficient ion thrusters are like 20,000s (although they're operating at a different scale so idk if that's an apples to apples comparison) Edit- I looked at the Momentus paper linked above and apparently their ISP is 800s

It's my understanding that current state of the art very low kN, but high ISP efficiency hall effect/ion grid thrusters can achieve 6000-8000 specific impulse without an absolutely ridiculous amount of electricity. There are designs that have been ground tested but not flown which could achieve 15000-20000 ISP but would also require immense photovoltaic arrays, or a small nuclear reactor.

Once in orbit unless you need to achieve a lot of delta-v in a relatively short period of time, I'm not sure why an engine/fuel combo with only 800 ISP would be a logical choice. It's certainly a whole lot more efficient than a bipropellant chemical rocket engine, which maxes out around 385-400 ISP. Although it's never flown I believe the theoretical efficiency of a NERVA would be around 800.

Post reply on HN