7 ms·

Hopefully once Starship launches, we'll never see a disposable core again.

verdverm 4y ago
They are different classes of launch vehicles. This payload is not really a good one for starship, and conversely, starlinks will never fly on heavy
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the goal with Starship is that the economics are so much better that it's used even for awkward launches. I do not believe they are targeting Falcon Heavy launches in the long-term, assuming the best-case Starship scenarios.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Yes, it's really odd to see a GEO launch rather than a GTO at launch. GTO is a geosynchronous transfer orbit with apogee at GEO and perigee at LEO that uses the satellite's thrusters to circularize to full GEO. Starship can't do a GEO directly, it would need refueling or a kick stage to do GEO. Since we really don't know why the Space Force wanted direct GEO we can't know for sure if refueling or a kick stage would have met requirements or not. Would it be good enough as long as the satellite to stay hidden inside the fairing during refueling?
  - ErikCorry 4y ago
    They wanted to use it before Xmas to keep an eye on Ukraine, and they didn't want to have to wait?
oconnor663 4y ago
Even a reusable rocket reaches the end of its service life eventually, and at that point it can make sense for the last flight to be expendable.
- chroma 4y ago
  It's probably more cost-effective to keep the craft and scrap it. The structure itself is a significant amount of steel, and the engines contain expensive superalloys.
  - oorza 4y ago
    If a spacefaring vessel lasts long enough that it needs to be decomissioned due to wear and tear, that mf'er belongs ONLY in a museum. I hope to live to the day where that isn't universally true, but it is not today.
    - TOMDM 4y ago
      Makes sense for NASA to donate, but say SpaceX could recover $10m in materials from an expended Starship, that's a steep ask. When the time comes, I hope they choose to donate it to a museum, or if not, the funds are raised to buy it off them.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I mean it's a $10m ask/potential write-off, so there is that. The "first one" will be even more rare/valuable and NASA might make a deal for it.
    - chroma 4y ago
      I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes or ships. Has SpaceX kept any of their Falcon 9 boosters besides the first one that landed? I think the old ones are disassembled for analysis, then scrapped.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes I've always been a fan of putting such things on pedestals outside of public buildings, VFWs, etc. A bit less feasible with full rockets, but the engines at least would be fairly easy to put in parks so kids can climb on them.

They are different classes of launch vehicles. This payload is not really a good one for starship, and conversely, starlinks will never fly on heavy

bpodgursky 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the goal with Starship is that the economics are so much better that it's used even for awkward launches. I do not believe they are targeting Falcon Heavy launches in the long-term, assuming the best-case Starship scenarios.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Yes, it's really odd to see a GEO launch rather than a GTO at launch. GTO is a geosynchronous transfer orbit with apogee at GEO and perigee at LEO that uses the satellite's thrusters to circularize to full GEO. Starship can't do a GEO directly, it would need refueling or a kick stage to do GEO. Since we really don't know why the Space Force wanted direct GEO we can't know for sure if refueling or a kick stage would have met requirements or not. Would it be good enough as long as the satellite to stay hidden inside the fairing during refueling?
- ErikCorry 4y ago
  They wanted to use it before Xmas to keep an eye on Ukraine, and they didn't want to have to wait?

oconnor663 4y ago

Even a reusable rocket reaches the end of its service life eventually, and at that point it can make sense for the last flight to be expendable.

chroma 4y ago
It's probably more cost-effective to keep the craft and scrap it. The structure itself is a significant amount of steel, and the engines contain expensive superalloys.
- oorza 4y ago
  If a spacefaring vessel lasts long enough that it needs to be decomissioned due to wear and tear, that mf'er belongs ONLY in a museum. I hope to live to the day where that isn't universally true, but it is not today.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    Makes sense for NASA to donate, but say SpaceX could recover $10m in materials from an expended Starship, that's a steep ask. When the time comes, I hope they choose to donate it to a museum, or if not, the funds are raised to buy it off them.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I mean it's a $10m ask/potential write-off, so there is that. The "first one" will be even more rare/valuable and NASA might make a deal for it.
  - chroma 4y ago
    I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes or ships. Has SpaceX kept any of their Falcon 9 boosters besides the first one that landed? I think the old ones are disassembled for analysis, then scrapped.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes I've always been a fan of putting such things on pedestals outside of public buildings, VFWs, etc. A bit less feasible with full rockets, but the engines at least would be fairly easy to put in parks so kids can climb on them.