[−]HarHarVeryFunny · 2026-11-15 Sun 01:16 UTC ·
link
Reusability is all about cost savings. The real question now is how much does it cost to turn Starship around for reuse - how much heat shield replacement, how do the vaccuum raptor engines survive the thermal cycling, what is the lifetime of parts involved in the catch mechanism, etc.
In any case, a cool spectacle.
[−]MiroslavPokorny · 2026-11-15 Sun 01:44 UTC ·
link
So losing up 100 starships to reuse one that gets to the moon, is saving money ?
Which guidelines are they violating? Just because their commentary is unpopular with the usual shills doesn't mean they're violating guidelines at all. I'm certainly not seeing much at all that's violating any guideline.
The comment he is responding to didn't deserve the dismissal.
100 launches per landing is wrong. It's 40 launches at most and even that is somewhat pessimistic because it assumes a return starship to bypass Orion.
Cost savings are one of the drivers for reuse, but not the only one. Maximum practical flight rate is another. F9's peak flight rate over the past couple years would not have been attainable without first stage reuse, simply because of the manufacturing bottlenecks on stages. And fairing reuse was openly driven by a limited capacity to manufacture fairings fast enough - it's not even clear that SpaceX is overall saving money there, but they are saving time, and their business model is based around putting as much mass in orbit as they can as fast as they can.
I thought the same, the catch was nice and impressive but I’d say it would be a fair bit of stress on the structure too. I’m guessing one day we will actually see these things have landing gears and not need a tower but until then…
I thought the same, the catch was nice and impressive but I’d say it would be a fair bit of stress on the structure too. I’m guessing one day we will actually see these things have landing gears and not need a tower but until then…
I get similar vibes to watching this spectacle to that of the “Tesla flying car” demonstration. Amazing stunt , but is that the primary goal ?
Landing gear is really really heavy. To compare it to a building, the upper stage is 17 stories tall and 700sqft crosssection (9m⌀). The rocket is top-heavy, so you have to have wide legs. Wide legs need big triangular structures that articulate outwards, which dramatically increase the load (torque = force*distance) needed to hold up the 17 story building without breaking when it hits the ground, and are complex and get in the way of all the engines.
In comparison, adding more steel to the tower is effectively free. Additionally the hardpoints on the rocket are at the top (no top-heavy problem to deal with) and very close to the rocket, so the torque is minimal. And the hardpoints already exist, in the form of the attachments to the wings, which already need to be strong.
It is crazy but... it makes some amount of sense? I mean we'll see landing gear when/if it gets to the moon, but there's a lot less gravity there.
I actually screwed up, I mean the rocket itself, not really the tower :) But yeah, agree the tower is probably the more robust piece and you're right, the legs would be heavy and I guess "dead weight".
I just find this reusable Starship thing pretty Elon, crazy impressive demo, actually a good concept, let's see if it truly goes "into prod".
In any case, a cool spectacle.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
read comments
Which guidelines are they violating? Just because their commentary is unpopular with the usual shills doesn't mean they're violating guidelines at all. I'm certainly not seeing much at all that's violating any guideline.
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
100 launches per landing is wrong. It's 40 launches at most and even that is somewhat pessimistic because it assumes a return starship to bypass Orion.
In order to get passing tests, they have to fail first.
Hope is not physical reality.
Something is only successful when success is delivered.
I get similar vibes to watching this spectacle to that of the “Tesla flying car” demonstration. Amazing stunt , but is that the primary goal ?
In comparison, adding more steel to the tower is effectively free. Additionally the hardpoints on the rocket are at the top (no top-heavy problem to deal with) and very close to the rocket, so the torque is minimal. And the hardpoints already exist, in the form of the attachments to the wings, which already need to be strong.
It is crazy but... it makes some amount of sense? I mean we'll see landing gear when/if it gets to the moon, but there's a lot less gravity there.
I just find this reusable Starship thing pretty Elon, crazy impressive demo, actually a good concept, let's see if it truly goes "into prod".