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

Starship is still not understood

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 364 posts

Re: Starship is still not understood

#91

Post by altcognito »

qayxc wrote: post #78
altcognito wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin said it would be 16, Musk has claimed it won't be more than 8. https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-s... It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships (presumably you would need less boosters) https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starship... Anyway, it's absolutely the case that transferring a million tons of c…

Even 90,000 launches over 10 launch windows is 9,000 launches per window. Launch opportunities are about 30 days max per window (depending on the flight profile) so that'd be 300 launches per day or over 12 launches per hour . I'm not saying this is bonkers, but this is completely ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether it's 90,000 or 180,000 or even "just" 45,000 launches - it's completely impractical. Not to menti…

Don't assume that launches for refueling operations happen during the launch window. The window is really as long as you want it to be for refueling. Yes, there are engineering challenges associated with having fuel in orbit over a longer period.

I'll agree there is a shortage of plans and an excess of hope in what you're going to ship to Mars in the near term. But I can also see where others are saying -- something this big requires a slow organization like NASA to start planning now.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#92

Post by Yizahi »

ncallaway wrote: post #8

I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship. The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high. If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentall…

Latest post is more of a continuation of this one: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/03/04/sls-what-now/

I'm going to presume what author thought and quote him:

------

What does NASA do with teams that cost a few billion dollars a year to feed and whose main expertise is building rockets and space probes whose entire architectural philosophy is threatened by current launch costs, let alone the order of magnitude improvement that’s in the pipeline?

The Perseverance Mars rover cost $2.4 billion, which works out to a few thousand salaries for just under a decade. Thousands of people are needed to build this rover because landing stuff on Mars is so hard that subsystem masses must be tracked to a tenth of a gram, on a system that weighs a tonne. The whole thing is meticulously handcrafted from custom silicon, PCBs, titanium tubes, motors, cameras, and other awe-inspiring instruments. Starship will be able to land 100 of them per flight. Now what? How can NASA feed a team that makes one feather light rover per decade for a billion dollars if the demand just jumped by a factor of a thousand and the unit cost fell by the same amount? Set up a production line? Work out how to make them with a team of ten? Build one every two weeks?

In short, in a world where SLS’s ongoing failure is justified and/or ignored while Starship races towards transformational capabilities, NASA needs to think very deeply about its place in a human spaceflight program that appears poised to proceed without NASA at its center.

-----

So the point is it seems to be a question - what is NASA planning to do AT ALL in the world where Starship is flying?

Re: Starship is still not understood

#93

Post by baggachipz »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #60
bryanlarsen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050. For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M. That's not sensible risk management, that's head in the sand denialism. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...

The problem is that for Starship to hit that $10M price point, SpaceX will have to demonstrate several as of yet unproven capabilities: In-space refueling (required for any missions outside LEO), safe and reliable re-entry from orbit, and fast turnaround for Starship to be launch-ready after landing. The last thing NASA needs is a glorified Space Shuttle 2.0 that takes months to be rebuilt after each re-entry, and ha…

> NASA is right to not put all of its eggs in the Starship basket.

The problem is that not only are they not putting any eggs into the Starship basket, they aren't even aware (or admitting) that the basket even exists.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#94

Post by bryanlarsen »

pjc50 wrote: post #56
vanattab wrote: post #41

>Starship is intended to be able to transport a million tonnes of cargo to the surface of Mars in just ten launch windows. So at 100tons per starship sent to Mars that's 10,000 trips or 1000 per launch window. But the current plans call for something like 16 starship launches just for refuelling the one starship for the lunar mission. Suppose we can do the Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 laun…

Would anyone like to estimate the CO2 emissions produced by that?

Musk has promised that eventually they will use synthetic methane to launch Starship, so net emissions will be zero.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#95

Post by qayxc »

twic wrote: post #5
h2odragon wrote: post #2

I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will. I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up wit…

I loved this bit: > McMaster-Carr already stocks thousands of parts that will work in mines, on oil rigs, and any number of other horrendously corrosive, warranty voiding environments compared to which the vacuum of space is delightfully benign. Yeah, working underwater means it'll work in space no problem!

The author is a physicist, not an engineer and shows in all of his articles.

Physicists are trained to check whether a concept passes the constraints of the current theoretical models. If it does, the rest is just an engineering problem - i.e. take the theoretical upper limits of mechanics and material science and extrapolate from there.

No concern for the pesky 10% that take up 90% of the development time and make or break a product.

In this context: sure, there's equipment that can work in space. But all of this equipment needs to be operated and maintained by humans and there's where your problem starts.

Remote operation is impractical beyond the Earth-Moon system.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#96

Post by coldtea »

panick21_ wrote: post #68
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the middle class is poor because a tiny part of the budget is invested in space? No, it's poor because the same logic that invests that "tiny part of the budget" in space (and prints billions of money to fund the likes of Musk, Bezos, and so on), also runs the other investments and public policy decisions.

> and prints billions of money to fund the likes of Musk, Bezos, and so on That's not how monetary policy works but ok ... > also runs the other investments and public policy decisions So you don't like some things the government does and therefore anything the government does is bad and we can have no argument about what spending is good and what is bad?

>That's not how monetary policy works but ok ...

Modern QE, for example, is not traditional monetary policy anyway, but ok. Nor is playing with such a huge percentage of the GDP, or facilitating lending to the already rich, to use to stock their fireplaces, VC bets, and in general, getting richer on a cheap supply of money...

>So you don't like some things the government does and therefore anything the government does is bad and we can have no argument about what spending is good and what is bad?

On the contrary, I like government. I just with it did things as a government of/for the people, as opposed as a lackey to oligarchs. You know, reigning on them, instead of high fiving them and being in their pockets. Or printing money to keep the bubble alive, so they can play with their phallic rockets.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#97

Post by vanattab »

ceejayoz wrote: post #67
vanattab wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point. This guy is pissed that NASA is not planning properly because Starship will unlock the ability to send millions of tons all over the solar system but in realty starship is only one of hundreds (thousands?) of advancements that will need to be made before we can think of sending 100's of millions of tons around the system.

I think it's reasonable to think NASA should currently being doing exploratory thinking about "how would we build something like a space station, lunar base, or Mars mission if Starship is available within the decade", though. Which is what I think the author is advocating; to get a few years out in front, rather than waiting until Starship reaches the point where it can't be ignored.

But isn't NASA already doing that? I mean SpaceX and starship was just awarded the solo lunar lander contract no? The first Artimis flights are in 2023 no?

Re: Starship is still not understood

#98

Post by gremloni »

qayxc wrote: post #78
altcognito wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin said it would be 16, Musk has claimed it won't be more than 8. https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-s... It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships (presumably you would need less boosters) https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starship... Anyway, it's absolutely the case that transferring a million tons of c…

Even 90,000 launches over 10 launch windows is 9,000 launches per window. Launch opportunities are about 30 days max per window (depending on the flight profile) so that'd be 300 launches per day or over 12 launches per hour . I'm not saying this is bonkers, but this is completely ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether it's 90,000 or 180,000 or even "just" 45,000 launches - it's completely impractical. Not to menti…

Based on what, your gut feel? 12 launches per hour does not seem insane at all.

Re: Starship is still not understood

#99

Post by natch »

ncallaway wrote: post #8

I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship. The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high. If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentall…

I would buy your argument if they weren’t assuming the benefits of SLS before it’s proven. Why give SLS, but not Starship, the benefit of the doubt?

Re: Starship is still not understood

#100

Post by ceejayoz »

vanattab wrote: post #84
ceejayoz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Starship's gonna generate about the same emissions as a similarly sized passenger aircraft generates from a full fuel load. We fly ~40M flights a year. It'd be a drop in the bucket.

A 737-800 has a max take off weight of 175,000lbs Super Heavy Dry Mass: 350,000-440,000lbs Super Heavy Fuel Weight: 7,500,000lbs Starship Dry Mass: ~200,000lbs Starship Fuel Weight: 2,600,000lbs Starship+Booster total: 10,695,000lbs 175,000lbs vs 10,965,000lbs! There is no such thing as a similarly sized aircraft!

A 747-8's MTOW is about a million pounds. Ten-ish 747s for a Starship, as a roughly worst case estimate. Only so much carbon you can stuff into a ton of fuel.

A single-digit percentage global increase in aviation emissions.

(I'm also very skeptical of that level of Starship launches. By the time you're getting anywhere near that, you're likely to have captured some comets and are processing fuel for interplanetary missions in an orbital refinery. Net zero emissions except for getting the people and Earth-only parts up to LEO.)

Post reply on HN