4 ms·

Raptor engines are still expensive. Wasting a perfectly good Raptor seems like a bad idea. Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete.

jacquesm 6y ago
Wasting 3.
zionic 6y ago
The raptors flying are also obsolete, tons of improvements on higher SN's
ChickeNES 6y ago
> Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete. They were, SN15+ will use pre-production Raptors instead of prototype ones. A few of the newer engines have already been spotted, they are much cleaner in design and their mounts are rotated compared to the earlier engines (making them incompatible with the rockets that have flown so far)
xoa 6y ago
As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was already under $1 million and that they're aiming for <$250k each with 2.0. That'd mean those three cost, at most and prototype status aside, a few million. That's just really not expensive in rocketry, or big machine early development in general. Even ignoring all other investment they can get, they're probably making at least $10-20m+ net income per commercial launch of the F9 at this point. So every single launch could cover multiple Starship tests. It's really wild how frugal it is compared to what everyone has become used to in rocketry, and in turn the kinds of things they can try. Edit: just for context at the polar opposite end of the scale, "NASA will pay $146 million for each SLS rocket engine" (they need four per launch, and they're all thrown away each time). https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
- someperson 6y ago
  Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.
  - belval 6y ago
    SpaceX will not go bankrupt or have trouble raising money in the near future. Their ace in the hole is doing an IPO. With the current craze people would throw incredible amount of money at them. Talk to investors and everyone is bullish on SpaceX because they have a good moat, strong revenues and growth potential.
  - xoa 6y ago
    To clarify, I wasn't saying they were fully self-funding, just giving some additional context to "not that expensive". Given that they have hordes of investors willing to throw money at them (and for decent reason for once), they'd be foolish to significantly slow bootstrapping through the more capex heavy part of the roadmap rather then doing multiple programs at once, particularly when said programs have real synergy. But if for some odd reason they had to go it alone, it's so cheap and F9 beats others so thoroughly that they probably actually could at this point, which is a wild thing to write about super heavy rocket R&D. It'd make everything take many years longer though, and they'd have to prioritize differently.
    - someperson 6y ago
      I should also mention there is the Artemis HLS down-select coming up in a few weeks where the Lunar Starship should net SpaceX another $2 billion of funding (assuming they're selected). For those unfamiliar, here's a great overview of the Artemis HLS landing systems: https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 A private company developing a Super Heavy Lift Mars/Moon rocket and streaming the monthly tests online. Very exciting times.

jacquesm 6y ago

Wasting 3.

zionic 6y ago

The raptors flying are also obsolete, tons of improvements on higher SN's

ChickeNES 6y ago

> Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete. They were, SN15+ will use pre-production Raptors instead of prototype ones. A few of the newer engines have already been spotted, they are much cleaner in design and their mounts are rotated compared to the earlier engines (making them incompatible with the rockets that have flown so far)

xoa 6y ago

As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was already under $1 million and that they're aiming for <$250k each with 2.0. That'd mean those three cost, at most and prototype status aside, a few million. That's just really not expensive in rocketry, or big machine early development in general. Even ignoring all other investment they can get, they're probably making at least $10-20m+ net income per commercial launch of the F9 at this point. So every single launch could cover multiple Starship tests. It's really wild how frugal it is compared to what everyone has become used to in rocketry, and in turn the kinds of things they can try. Edit: just for context at the polar opposite end of the scale, "NASA will pay $146 million for each SLS rocket engine" (they need four per launch, and they're all thrown away each time). https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...

someperson 6y ago
Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.
- belval 6y ago
  SpaceX will not go bankrupt or have trouble raising money in the near future. Their ace in the hole is doing an IPO. With the current craze people would throw incredible amount of money at them. Talk to investors and everyone is bullish on SpaceX because they have a good moat, strong revenues and growth potential.
- xoa 6y ago
  To clarify, I wasn't saying they were fully self-funding, just giving some additional context to "not that expensive". Given that they have hordes of investors willing to throw money at them (and for decent reason for once), they'd be foolish to significantly slow bootstrapping through the more capex heavy part of the roadmap rather then doing multiple programs at once, particularly when said programs have real synergy. But if for some odd reason they had to go it alone, it's so cheap and F9 beats others so thoroughly that they probably actually could at this point, which is a wild thing to write about super heavy rocket R&D. It'd make everything take many years longer though, and they'd have to prioritize differently.
  - someperson 6y ago
    I should also mention there is the Artemis HLS down-select coming up in a few weeks where the Lunar Starship should net SpaceX another $2 billion of funding (assuming they're selected). For those unfamiliar, here's a great overview of the Artemis HLS landing systems: https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 A private company developing a Super Heavy Lift Mars/Moon rocket and streaming the monthly tests online. Very exciting times.