4 ms·

> Even a 10x factor would be utterly transformational. In fairness, the current best option, the Falcon Heavy, is already 35x as cost effective as the Shuttle.

> Even a 10x factor would be utterly transformational. In fairness, the current best option, the Falcon Heavy, is already 35x as cost effective as the Shuttle. But yes, even in the worst case Starship will be far cheaper.

dredmorbius 5y ago
If you look at technologies which have had huge impacts on the world, a 10x change is simply tremendous. A person walking typically manages about 3 mph / 5 kph. A typical person on a bicycle can sustain about 15--20 mph (24--32 kph). Early trains operated at about 25--30 mph (40--50 kph), and soon regularly reached 60 mph (100 kph). The combined factors of speed and cargo capacity make rail utterly transformational to humans (or animals) carrying loads. Even compared with high-tonnage cargo methods of the era (riverboats and canals), rail's speed was a major factor. (The tonnage/speed tradeoff continues between rail and river or ocean shipping today. For bulk, time-insensitive cargos, rail cannot compete.) Propellor-driven aircraft moved at about 100-250 mph (160--320 kph) --- the DC3 cruised at 200 mph, as an example. Jet aircraft cruise at about 550--650 mph (850--1,000 kph). And of course, orbital spacecraft / ballistic missiles hit 17,000 mph (27,000 kph), and up. In the case of marine shipping, speeds didn't vary so much as tonnage did, with the net ton-miles/hour figure increasing accordingly. Clipper ships trended below 200 tons. Maersk's Triple-E class container ships displace 200,000 tons, a factor of 1,000. The energy cost of lighting over the past 200 years has fallen by a factor of thousands, from candles and oil lamps to LEDs. Lighting uses which were previously unfathomable are now commonplace. Candle-powered outdoor advertising displays might be quaint, however, if somewhat fire-prone. Again, typically, a 10x gain in some metric pushes applications to an entirely new domain, which was my point. Not that a 10x improvement was the likely limit in this case.
- Asraelite 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understood your point correctly. I interpreted what you said as meaning that Starship being 10x better than the Shuttle would be a significant improvement. I'm saying that the Falcon Heavy has already achieved a 35x improvement from the Space Shuttle, and therefore if Starship achieved only a 10x improvement relative to the Shuttle it would actually be worse than what we already have and so wouldn't be an advancement. If you meant 10x relative to current rockets, then yes, I agree that would be significant.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I agree with you regarding FH's achievement. You are not reading the message I am attempting to convey.

dredmorbius 5y ago

If you look at technologies which have had huge impacts on the world, a 10x change is simply tremendous. A person walking typically manages about 3 mph / 5 kph. A typical person on a bicycle can sustain about 15--20 mph (24--32 kph). Early trains operated at about 25--30 mph (40--50 kph), and soon regularly reached 60 mph (100 kph). The combined factors of speed and cargo capacity make rail utterly transformational to humans (or animals) carrying loads. Even compared with high-tonnage cargo methods of the era (riverboats and canals), rail's speed was a major factor. (The tonnage/speed tradeoff continues between rail and river or ocean shipping today. For bulk, time-insensitive cargos, rail cannot compete.) Propellor-driven aircraft moved at about 100-250 mph (160--320 kph) --- the DC3 cruised at 200 mph, as an example. Jet aircraft cruise at about 550--650 mph (850--1,000 kph). And of course, orbital spacecraft / ballistic missiles hit 17,000 mph (27,000 kph), and up. In the case of marine shipping, speeds didn't vary so much as tonnage did, with the net ton-miles/hour figure increasing accordingly. Clipper ships trended below 200 tons. Maersk's Triple-E class container ships displace 200,000 tons, a factor of 1,000. The energy cost of lighting over the past 200 years has fallen by a factor of thousands, from candles and oil lamps to LEDs. Lighting uses which were previously unfathomable are now commonplace. Candle-powered outdoor advertising displays might be quaint, however, if somewhat fire-prone. Again, typically, a 10x gain in some metric pushes applications to an entirely new domain, which was my point. Not that a 10x improvement was the likely limit in this case.

Asraelite 5y ago
I'm not sure I understood your point correctly. I interpreted what you said as meaning that Starship being 10x better than the Shuttle would be a significant improvement. I'm saying that the Falcon Heavy has already achieved a 35x improvement from the Space Shuttle, and therefore if Starship achieved only a 10x improvement relative to the Shuttle it would actually be worse than what we already have and so wouldn't be an advancement. If you meant 10x relative to current rockets, then yes, I agree that would be significant.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I agree with you regarding FH's achievement. You are not reading the message I am attempting to convey.