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

Starship / Super Heavy

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 298 posts

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#91

Post by systemvoltage »

doomlaser wrote: post #49
zlsa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already done it[0], and it was a complete success until a propellant pressure issue resulted in lower than needed thrust, and a hard impact on the pad. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwLHlVjRyw

It oriented almost perfectly. I'm truly amazed at what SpaceX has accomplished so far. Just need to stick that landing a few dozen more times. It's quite a reorientation.

Curious why does it need to wait so long to reorient? I thought it was going to crash and in last few hundred feet, it flipped! Can it orient straight - way up in the air like Falcon boosters?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#93

Post by [deleted] »

cameronh90 wrote: post #79
mulmen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure SpaceX would be interested in your plan to get to space without passing through FAA regulated airspace.

They could launch from outside America. They've already said they plan to launch from floating platforms in the ocean...

[deleted]

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#94

Post by garmaine »

avmich wrote: post #63
gibolt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is approximately a 30 storey building. The majority of it is filled with extremely dense liquid fuel. The ability to lift that into orbit (minus most fuel and booster) with both halves still able to land is an insane feat.

You mean, extremely cold. Not particularly dense, methane is about half of water density, oxygen is about 10% more.

When supercooled they’re a bit more dense than that. But as the sibling comment said, most 30 story buildings aren’t filled with water.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#95

Post by mempko »

electriclove wrote: post #87
noveltyaccount wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah in some ways the Saturn program is the more amazing. Technology finally caught up to the amazing accomplishment of the Saturn rocket program, if that makes sense.

The Apollo program was indeed amazing. Government bureaucracy and mediocrity is responsible for 50 years of regression. What SpaceX is doing with Starship is also amazing on so many levels (Raptor engine, reusable, goal of Mars, etc).

Isn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#96

Post by garmaine »

ubertoop wrote: post #72
divbzero wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This factoid [1] may soon need an update. [1]: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-r... "Largest rocket"

Nice use of "factoid". Most people use this world incorrectly.

Probably because most of the world has a different definition.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#97

Post by SECProto »

systemvoltage wrote: post #91
doomlaser wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It oriented almost perfectly. I'm truly amazed at what SpaceX has accomplished so far. Just need to stick that landing a few dozen more times. It's quite a reorientation.

Curious why does it need to wait so long to reorient? I thought it was going to crash and in last few hundred feet, it flipped! Can it orient straight - way up in the air like Falcon boosters?

Reorienting requires the use of main engines. You want to relight them only once, to ensure that the header tanks and the "downcomer" remain full. Additionally you want to burn off as much speed as possible with the bellyflop, so flipping vertical as late as possible. All combined this means combining the landing burn with the flip is best, as close to landing as possible.

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#98

Post by rlt »

rtkwe wrote: post #67
TylerE wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the counterargument is that as long as you bring it down in a "safe" area, you don't really need a 100% success rate. If you can reuse it, great, if not, well, it's a rocket.

The belly flop is also how passenger variants will be landing so you do actually need a reliable program....

...eventually.

They didn’t launch humans on the Falcon 9 for the first 10 years either. Lots of time to iron out the kinks (though it will likely be much less than 10 years this time)

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#99

Post by TaylorAlexander »

karmicthreat wrote: post #73
doomlaser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really interested in seeing how it will perform its "belly flop" landing. Seems like a high risk maneuver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTYMry7fq0#t=1m17s

My guess would be it will still have a launch escape system for the passenger variant. So if the belly flop doesn't look right or if it doesn't stick the landing it just ejects the crew.

Well Everyday Astronaut did a long article and YouTube video about why starship won’t have a launch abort system. [1] I don’t believe I’ve watched the video but I remembered it exists so I thought I’d share.

https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-abort/

Re: Starship / Super Heavy

#100

Post by mobilefriendly »

mempko wrote: post #95
electriclove wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apollo program was indeed amazing. Government bureaucracy and mediocrity is responsible for 50 years of regression. What SpaceX is doing with Starship is also amazing on so many levels (Raptor engine, reusable, goal of Mars, etc).

Isn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?

No, government funding to hit work milestones is totally different than government bureaucracy attempting to actually do the work.
Post reply on HN