3 ms·

It is due in part to them owning a cheap launch platform. The world has not caught up yet to how cheap space launches are going to be. SpaceX knew that with the

It is due in part to them owning a cheap launch platform. The world has not caught up yet to how cheap space launches are going to be. SpaceX knew that with their Falcon 9 reusable rockets that launch costs for them were going to go down by a factor of 10 and with their new SuperHeavy, by a factor of 1000. Think $30/kg to orbit instead of $10000/kg. 14 of the 23 rockets launched by SpaceX this year were for Starlink. They want to build up a culture and skills for rapid relaunch and building StarLink gives them a hopefully profitable way to drive that. Phased array antennas are necessary for this to work (no tracking of the low satellites necessary), because one wants to have the satellites in very low orbits to achieve low latency. Geosynchronous satellites are very far away from earth so that speed of light gives unacceptable delays for things like gaming, chats, remote server admin, etc. Very low orbit can get short pings (in theory better than fiber because light moves faster in a vacuum than in glass). But very low orbit means one needs a lot of satellites to have wide coverage and no dropped connections. They are thinking around 12,000 in the first phase and around 42,000 in the second phase. Having so many satellites also gives the system much higher bandwidth as each satellite is limited in data transfer rates. Plus SpaceX is looking for a cash cow to fund their ultimate goal: a cheap, extensive Mars transportation system to facilitate building a city on Mars.

GuB-42 6y ago
I agree with the cheap launch platform argument but from another, perspective. I don't believe SpaceX numbers and BFR (it will always be BFR for me) is still a paper rocket (Raptor looks good though). But it is still cheap compared to traditional launches. The problem is: SpaceX has now plenty of cheap, reusable Falcon 9s but not a lot of stuff to launch. There are not that many companies who want to build and launch satellites: it is expensive no matter what and the cost has to be justified. Falcon 9 rockets (including heavy) are also limited in capability: small fairing space and not the most efficient beyond LEO. Also, it may not be suitable for some sensitive payloads (military, etc...). Ii means that SpaceX has good rockets, they already have the "culture and skills for rapid relaunch" but not enough market for it. So they did the obvious thing: create their own. As for BFR. I made the choice not to take SpaceX communication into account, it is worthless. Same thing with everything by Elon Musk. I only believe what they show, which is already impressive enough.
- stevep98 6y ago
  I think there is still a pricing problem with reusability because spacex doesn’t have any competition that is reusable. There is no downward pressure on pricing because spacex only has to be slightly cheaper than the cheapest non-reusable rocket. So for a marginal cost of, let’s say, $2m for a reflown booster, there are still able to charge $50m+. But since their customers are seeing prices of $50m, space is still expensive... nothing much has changed. (I’ve simplified this by omitting the fact that the upper stage is not reusable) A lot of BFR development is being done in the open in Boca Chica, and you can follow along because it’s being live-streamed almost 24/7. BFR has had small incremental hops recently and will try for a 15km flight this week. We’ll see what happens.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    Hopefully Bezos and Blue Origin can get New Glen on the launch pad soon. It is the only viable competitor to SpaceX that I see at the moment. One other possibility is for some company in China to appear on the scene. Elon Musk has said he would love some competition because it helps increase the pace of progress. He even tried that internally for a bit by developing StarShip in two locations for awhile. I heard him in an interview saying that SpaceX might have too many great engineers and that it would be better for his goal of a city on Mars to have them spread over many companies.
- nickik 6y ago
  By no definition is Starship a paper rocket. Either you have not been paying attention or you don't know what the definition of a paper rocket is. > small fairing space and Its not actually small. Its a little smaller then the biggest that you could launch on Delta 4 (that you can't buy) or a New Glenn (that you can't buy), but to just say its 'small' is just not accurate. Essentially its size is big enough for 99% of payloads. There are like a few military sats in the next 5 years that need a slightly bigger fairing and they will have that for those launches. > not the most efficient beyond LEO By what definition? Just because it doesn't use hydrogen doesn't mean its not the suitable for beyond LEO. There is a reason the alternative for SLS is Falcon Heavy and not anything else. > Also, it may not be suitable for some sensitive payloads (military, etc...). That is just false. Falcon rockets are fully qualified for all military orbits and payloads. The only thing they can't do right now is vertical assembly and that will be built by the time they have the first contract.

GuB-42 6y ago

I agree with the cheap launch platform argument but from another, perspective. I don't believe SpaceX numbers and BFR (it will always be BFR for me) is still a paper rocket (Raptor looks good though). But it is still cheap compared to traditional launches. The problem is: SpaceX has now plenty of cheap, reusable Falcon 9s but not a lot of stuff to launch. There are not that many companies who want to build and launch satellites: it is expensive no matter what and the cost has to be justified. Falcon 9 rockets (including heavy) are also limited in capability: small fairing space and not the most efficient beyond LEO. Also, it may not be suitable for some sensitive payloads (military, etc...). Ii means that SpaceX has good rockets, they already have the "culture and skills for rapid relaunch" but not enough market for it. So they did the obvious thing: create their own. As for BFR. I made the choice not to take SpaceX communication into account, it is worthless. Same thing with everything by Elon Musk. I only believe what they show, which is already impressive enough.

stevep98 6y ago
I think there is still a pricing problem with reusability because spacex doesn’t have any competition that is reusable. There is no downward pressure on pricing because spacex only has to be slightly cheaper than the cheapest non-reusable rocket. So for a marginal cost of, let’s say, $2m for a reflown booster, there are still able to charge $50m+. But since their customers are seeing prices of $50m, space is still expensive... nothing much has changed. (I’ve simplified this by omitting the fact that the upper stage is not reusable) A lot of BFR development is being done in the open in Boca Chica, and you can follow along because it’s being live-streamed almost 24/7. BFR has had small incremental hops recently and will try for a 15km flight this week. We’ll see what happens.
- njarboe 6y ago
  Hopefully Bezos and Blue Origin can get New Glen on the launch pad soon. It is the only viable competitor to SpaceX that I see at the moment. One other possibility is for some company in China to appear on the scene. Elon Musk has said he would love some competition because it helps increase the pace of progress. He even tried that internally for a bit by developing StarShip in two locations for awhile. I heard him in an interview saying that SpaceX might have too many great engineers and that it would be better for his goal of a city on Mars to have them spread over many companies.
nickik 6y ago
By no definition is Starship a paper rocket. Either you have not been paying attention or you don't know what the definition of a paper rocket is. > small fairing space and Its not actually small. Its a little smaller then the biggest that you could launch on Delta 4 (that you can't buy) or a New Glenn (that you can't buy), but to just say its 'small' is just not accurate. Essentially its size is big enough for 99% of payloads. There are like a few military sats in the next 5 years that need a slightly bigger fairing and they will have that for those launches. > not the most efficient beyond LEO By what definition? Just because it doesn't use hydrogen doesn't mean its not the suitable for beyond LEO. There is a reason the alternative for SLS is Falcon Heavy and not anything else. > Also, it may not be suitable for some sensitive payloads (military, etc...). That is just false. Falcon rockets are fully qualified for all military orbits and payloads. The only thing they can't do right now is vertical assembly and that will be built by the time they have the first contract.