3 ms·

If we had, we definitely wouldn’t have gotten the low cost of the Starlink constellation. The industry experts, including Tim F, didn’t think such a thing was f

If we had, we definitely wouldn’t have gotten the low cost of the Starlink constellation. The industry experts, including Tim F, didn’t think such a thing was feasible. I’ve talked to a Guidance and Navigation expert (a civil servant working for the federal government for space systems) that didn’t think droneship landing (which SpaceX relies on for making reusable rockets—and thus Starlink—economical) was possible. When you have one big system and no competition, you get status quo solutions. That is, an order of magnitude greater cost. (And this isn’t an exaggeration… compare space shuttle costs for commercial satellites to Falcon 9. STS roughly is 10 to 100 times as expensive per launch with comparable payload.) But it’s important to keep in mind that the satellite networks are different from GPS and one important way: they are two way communication systems not broadcast. That means that you don’t get the same economies of scale for having just one system that you might for GPS. Having two communication systems that use two different spectrums means double the throughput that a single system would’ve provided.

wolverine876 5y ago
> When you have one big system and no competition, you get status quo solutions. GPS, moon landings, space stations, space shuttles, and most of the rest of the history of space are hardly status quo solutions! It's not like space has been stuck, waiting for Elon Musk to save the day.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I realize that in certain social circles, the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter, but that’s kind of precisely what happened. NASA and the aerospace primes (including in Europe) had abandoned reuse as impractical due to the lessons learned from Shuttle (and several abortive attempts at reusable launch, like X-33 and others). It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter Could you provide an example of someone saying that here? Elsewhere? > in certain social circles Is it possible that people have rational ideas that disagree with yours, which should not be dismissed as outcomes of social effects? At best, Musk's personal following seems like by far the strongest social phenomenon involved. > It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse. That wasn't the prior point and therefore wasn't what I responded to. The prior point, as I understood it, was that government is unable to innovate and only business is. Also, SpaceX is now part of the status quo.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      You said, and I quote: “GPS, moon landings, space stations, space shuttles, and most of the rest of the history of space are hardly status quo solutions! It's not like space has been stuck, waiting for Elon Musk to save the day.” But again, that’s precisely what happened. There was a decades-long, post-Cold-War stagnation in the government-led space industry (to the extent that NASA used a higher inflation rate to calculate aerospace project costs… ie aerospace technology was becoming MORE expensive over time for the same capability), particularly for launch technology (commercial launch was fleeing the US and going to cheaper foreign launchers like Russia), and it was SpaceX who ultimately broke the impasse and proved reusable launch was feasible. It is a huge impact, too. Consider SLS or, more to the point, the reference HLS lander versus Starship, which was selected for NASA’s commercial HLS bid. Starship is approximately 10 times larger in capability than the reference design or Apollo. NASA literally couldn’t afford any other option for Artemis to meet the 2024 landing goal. SLS vs Starship is a very illustrative comparison of what a single, monolithic, government-led solution vs a more competitive, commercial led solution is. (And government vs commercial ISN’T a good framing, here. NASA has been super important in commercialization of this stuff by fostering competition, serving as an anchor customer for new entrants, and providing valuable insight and consultation. And even in the Soviet era, there was competition between firms in the Soviet launch sector… single, monolithic solutions are just not a very efficient approach…).

wolverine876 5y ago

> When you have one big system and no competition, you get status quo solutions. GPS, moon landings, space stations, space shuttles, and most of the rest of the history of space are hardly status quo solutions! It's not like space has been stuck, waiting for Elon Musk to save the day.

Robotbeat 5y ago
I realize that in certain social circles, the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter, but that’s kind of precisely what happened. NASA and the aerospace primes (including in Europe) had abandoned reuse as impractical due to the lessons learned from Shuttle (and several abortive attempts at reusable launch, like X-33 and others). It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter Could you provide an example of someone saying that here? Elsewhere? > in certain social circles Is it possible that people have rational ideas that disagree with yours, which should not be dismissed as outcomes of social effects? At best, Musk's personal following seems like by far the strongest social phenomenon involved. > It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse. That wasn't the prior point and therefore wasn't what I responded to. The prior point, as I understood it, was that government is unable to innovate and only business is. Also, SpaceX is now part of the status quo.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    You said, and I quote: “GPS, moon landings, space stations, space shuttles, and most of the rest of the history of space are hardly status quo solutions! It's not like space has been stuck, waiting for Elon Musk to save the day.” But again, that’s precisely what happened. There was a decades-long, post-Cold-War stagnation in the government-led space industry (to the extent that NASA used a higher inflation rate to calculate aerospace project costs… ie aerospace technology was becoming MORE expensive over time for the same capability), particularly for launch technology (commercial launch was fleeing the US and going to cheaper foreign launchers like Russia), and it was SpaceX who ultimately broke the impasse and proved reusable launch was feasible. It is a huge impact, too. Consider SLS or, more to the point, the reference HLS lander versus Starship, which was selected for NASA’s commercial HLS bid. Starship is approximately 10 times larger in capability than the reference design or Apollo. NASA literally couldn’t afford any other option for Artemis to meet the 2024 landing goal. SLS vs Starship is a very illustrative comparison of what a single, monolithic, government-led solution vs a more competitive, commercial led solution is. (And government vs commercial ISN’T a good framing, here. NASA has been super important in commercialization of this stuff by fostering competition, serving as an anchor customer for new entrants, and providing valuable insight and consultation. And even in the Soviet era, there was competition between firms in the Soviet launch sector… single, monolithic solutions are just not a very efficient approach…).