[HN Gopher] SpaceX's monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transfor...
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX's monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel
Author : axiomdata316
Score : 41 points
Date : 2022-02-17 22:01 UTC (58 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| geocrasher wrote:
| The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer size
| of these machines, is the _engines_. The Raptor 2 is
| groundbreaking. And there 's 30+ of them between both stages.
| It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been
| done.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The thing that's impressive to me, in addition to the sheer
| size of these machines, is the engines. The Raptor 2 is
| groundbreaking. And there's 30+ of them between both stages.
| It's just incredible, and there's nothing like it that's been
| done.
|
| I may be wrong, but isn't the reason there are so many engines
| on their rockets is because SpaceX isn't good at building big
| rocket engines?
| kragen wrote:
| Yes, but it's not just SpaceX; nobody is good at building big
| rocket engines.
| hirundo wrote:
| > Mr Musk's development philosophy is that "if things are not
| failing, you aren't innovating enough."
|
| My boss used to keep repeating "move fast and break things!".
| Then a new guy seriously messed up and almost lost us a valuable
| client. The boss demanded an explanation. I said the new guy
| moved fast and broke things.
|
| He actually wrote that in the explanation to the client. I
| haven't heard that phrase again from him since.
| kragen wrote:
| https://archive.is/1IIml
| caycep wrote:
| "dirt cheap Starship" kinda reminds me of a backwoods project
| where all that was needed to achieve spaceflight and warp drive
| was a drunk James Cromwell and a few wise-cracking Starfleet
| officers who traveled back in time...
| strangesongs wrote:
| "Precisely when, though, remains unclear"
|
| The subheading says so much
| mlindner wrote:
| Because there's a lot of uncertainty at the moment that depends
| on the result of the FAA environmental review. If there's a
| "yes", then launch is likely this year. If there's a "no", then
| launch is likely not this year.
| ben_bai wrote:
| It's already booked, but timeframe still unclear. We'll see
| when the first cargo missions succeed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_program
| walrus01 wrote:
| For size comparison, interesting that they put a SLS block 1 in
| there, which has never flown or been to orbit, but didn't include
| the Soviet N1 which at least has flown a few times (in
| catastrophic, exploding fashion) but also has never been to
| orbit.
|
| They did include an Energia, which is a defunct program and has
| zero chances of ever getting manufactured again, same as the N1.
| colechristensen wrote:
| I mean, the SLS is slated for a launch in the next few months
| and the N1 was a failed program that ended fifty years ago. I
| can see very well the reasons for including one and not the
| other.
| walrus01 wrote:
| certainly, but it's also not rare to see an N1 when doing a
| side-by-side comparison with the Saturn V
| mhh__ wrote:
| Energia could (could...) Fly again according to some recent
| chatter.
|
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a22515248/rus...
| spicybright wrote:
| If only we could lower that peskty 1% chance of exploding each
| flight down a smidge.
|
| Well, at least this means the rockets will be cheaper to replace!
| Tepix wrote:
| What's the source for the 1%? It's not even flown into space
| yet.
|
| Its extremely high flight rate makes it likely that its
| reliability will be closer to planes than rockets eventually.
| mlindner wrote:
| They watched a popular youtube video that's making the rounds
| that claims that number as well as a couple of other
| incorrect statements.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| If you're ever in the Houston area, I highly recommend going to
| see NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a full-size replica (?)
| Saturn V rocket on its side, you can see.
|
| You simply can't grasp how big these rockets are until you see it
| up close. It's like a tall building blasting off into space.
| They're humongous.
|
| I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off
| to space.
| danavar wrote:
| In Huntsville AL they have one stood up outside a museum right
| off the highway - it's insane to see
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| https://goo.gl/maps/ikR6xaxmTkmoqTSt8
|
| For a sense of perspective, the building beside it appears to
| be seven or eight stories tall.
| tjchear wrote:
| Saw the first falcon that landed that was put up at SpaceX HQ.
| It's not as big as Saturn V, but it's still humongous up close.
|
| I also went down to Vanderberg AFB on a whim with a friend of
| mine to see a Falcon launch. That supersonic boom as the
| landing booster punched through the atmosphere, followed by
| rocket exhaust in the air is something I'll never forget.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Not a replica, that one was actually flight certified but never
| used.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I found it depressing. Ships aren't built to stay in the
| harbor, and rockets aren't built to lie on their side rusting.
|
| They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried.
| Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the
| original contractors.
| tjchear wrote:
| For lack of a political will or the technical know how?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| The popular wisdom is that we literally lost some of the
| technical specs and drawings. A lot of the R&D would have
| to be redone from scratch... not that it wouldn't make
| sense to do that anyway, 50+ years later.
| vidanay wrote:
| Yeah, we'd also have a hard time building a new Cutty
| Sark using hand tools and old growth oak. Lost knowledge
| is not correlated with regression.
| tjchear wrote:
| Not exactly related, but this reminds me of this triple
| nuclear plant project that ran into trouble by the time
| they're on their third, because it took so long, people
| with the requisite knowledge was gone and the remaining
| people had no idea how to fill the gap.
| pacetherace wrote:
| 1. Lost records
|
| 2. Many companies that help build those rockets have ceased
| to exists
|
| 3. Technology and tooling have changed substantially
|
| 4. Standards to deem a rocket flight worthy for human space
| flight have changed
| renewiltord wrote:
| Nah, it's historic. We have better stuff now. It's like a
| Model T. The best place for it is in the museum.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-17 23:00 UTC)