3 ms·
I'm pretty sure they'll at least need to load cryogenic fuel wherever they're trying to relaunch. For military operations it might actually be a possibility t
by gpm 5y ago
I'm pretty sure they'll at least need to load cryogenic fuel wherever they're trying to relaunch.
For military operations it might actually be a possibility to just not relaunch though. Explode the engines/anything sensitive and just leave it there. They're surprisingly cheap to build (compared to a lot of the expenses incurred during combat operations), at a (public and old) target of $5 million/ship.
- bserge 5y agoIt's $200+ million, where's the $5 million coming from, Elon's dreams? Though the Falcon 9 is $55 million, now that's comparable to a modern fighter jet.
- snewman 5y agoWhere do you get the $200 million figure? Bear in mind that it is only the Starship (upper stage), not the Super Heavy booster, that would be landing at the destination and hence potentially subject to abandonment. Also note that Starship, unlike Falcon 9 (or at least to a much greater extent), is designed to be produced efficiently in quantity.
- jp42 5y agoIIRC $5M/ship is average cost calculated assuming multiple launches. Not sure how much starship will cost in expendable mode.
- gpm 5y ago$5M is quoted as the construction cost, not cost amortized over launches. It's been given that way a few times, e.g. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/inside-elon-musks-plan-to-build-one-starship-a-week-and-settle-mars/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/inside-elon-musks-pl... I think you're probably looking at a few more million in launch costs, but those aren't recovered by recovering the ship anyways.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- PeterisP 5y agoIf their standard fuel load is enough for LEO, perhaps it's enough for two suborbital hops, especially if the return trip is without cargo?