4 ms·

Starship is fully reusable so it will cost a small fraction of falcon heavy to send a much bigger payload. The cost of sending a payload to orbit will plummet o

Starship is fully reusable so it will cost a small fraction of falcon heavy to send a much bigger payload. The cost of sending a payload to orbit will plummet once starship is operative. More importantly Falcon Heavy uses the Merlin engines and runs on RP-1. So, unlike methane, it cannot be produced on Mars.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Starship doesn't exist. How reusable or cheap it will be, or what payload it will carry, are all unknown at this time.
- kiratp 4y ago
  Starship is very real and did an 11 engine static fire last week. I have a hard time understanding the stance of “if it’s not ready exactly when SLS launches then it’s not comparable.” We are talking about decade spanning technologies and investments here https://youtu.be/7x1-W7k9V-s https://youtu.be/7x1-W7k9V-s
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    That's not Starship, it's the Super Heavy booster. The actual payload part is separate, and I don't think they've been combined in a single test so far. It's not a flying rocket, and it may yet need significant adjustments before it gets there - especially given that SpaceX has a very iterative development model. Also remember that the current Starship design requires a completely unproven technology (in-orbit refueling) to be able to reach the moon - it can't do so in a one-shot manner like SLS will hopefully succeed today. That piece of the mission alone may significantly alter the capabilities and costs.
    - kiratp 4y ago
      Starship has absolutely undergone extensive testing and continues to do so - https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8 https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8 These are decades long investments and technologies. The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. I don’t see the point of declaring non-compete just because it’s not flying at exactly this moment. SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. It’s also cheaper by orders of magnitude. If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?)
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        > Starship has absolutely undergone extensive testing and continues to do so That is the Starship module part. I edited out a portion where I indeed incorrectly claimed that Starhsip module hasn't been tested, and replaced by pointing out that the combination of launch vehicle (super heavy booster) + starship hasn't been tested. When comparing "Starship" with SLS, we actually mean the whole two-stage rocket, not simply the part of it named Starship. > The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. This remains to be seen. It was supposed to be flying this year, or even last year in some older estimates. As we've seen from SLS itself, (6) years of delay for these types of subjects are not surprising. > SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. Absolutely, but iteration necessarily implies changes in the current design - which is why I'm saying we don't actually know what the final version of Starship will support. > If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?) It depends on how confident I can be, and in how little of a rush I am. If I think they will deliver the first copy of the 10x better product 5 years from now, I may well award a 5 year contract to the vendor of the 0.1x product today, and have something to work with for the next 5 years.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        But NASA has awarded a contract to SpaceX for $1.15b for second Artemis mission. https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contract-for-second-artemis-lander-mission/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra... Unless I missed something, it seems to me that NASA is being highly strategic and practical, in contrast to theoretical debate.
  - tigershark 4y ago
    And let’s not forget the 14 engines static fire earlier that put it just behind SLS power with less than half the engines: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-14-engine-test-fire https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-14-engine-...
- tigershark 4y ago
  "Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. So if I were you I would shut up, just in case, given that SLS flew 7 years later than expected and Bolden was destroyed for his laughable interview. Falcon heavy is delivering real payloads, Starship will do the same soon, SLS will maybe fly another time of two before retirement. I can’t wait to see your post next time that SLS will fly.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure, we'll have to wait and see. I hope you also agree that, if Starship is also delayed 7 years, the decision to go with SLS was not in fact a problem, even if it only flies once or twice a year and is completely replaced by Starship after 7 years.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Starship doesn't exist. How reusable or cheap it will be, or what payload it will carry, are all unknown at this time.

kiratp 4y ago
Starship is very real and did an 11 engine static fire last week. I have a hard time understanding the stance of “if it’s not ready exactly when SLS launches then it’s not comparable.” We are talking about decade spanning technologies and investments here https://youtu.be/7x1-W7k9V-s https://youtu.be/7x1-W7k9V-s
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's not Starship, it's the Super Heavy booster. The actual payload part is separate, and I don't think they've been combined in a single test so far. It's not a flying rocket, and it may yet need significant adjustments before it gets there - especially given that SpaceX has a very iterative development model. Also remember that the current Starship design requires a completely unproven technology (in-orbit refueling) to be able to reach the moon - it can't do so in a one-shot manner like SLS will hopefully succeed today. That piece of the mission alone may significantly alter the capabilities and costs.
  - kiratp 4y ago
    Starship has absolutely undergone extensive testing and continues to do so - https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8 https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8 These are decades long investments and technologies. The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. I don’t see the point of declaring non-compete just because it’s not flying at exactly this moment. SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. It’s also cheaper by orders of magnitude. If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?)
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      > Starship has absolutely undergone extensive testing and continues to do so That is the Starship module part. I edited out a portion where I indeed incorrectly claimed that Starhsip module hasn't been tested, and replaced by pointing out that the combination of launch vehicle (super heavy booster) + starship hasn't been tested. When comparing "Starship" with SLS, we actually mean the whole two-stage rocket, not simply the part of it named Starship. > The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. This remains to be seen. It was supposed to be flying this year, or even last year in some older estimates. As we've seen from SLS itself, (6) years of delay for these types of subjects are not surprising. > SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. Absolutely, but iteration necessarily implies changes in the current design - which is why I'm saying we don't actually know what the final version of Starship will support. > If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?) It depends on how confident I can be, and in how little of a rush I am. If I think they will deliver the first copy of the 10x better product 5 years from now, I may well award a 5 year contract to the vendor of the 0.1x product today, and have something to work with for the next 5 years.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      But NASA has awarded a contract to SpaceX for $1.15b for second Artemis mission. https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contract-for-second-artemis-lander-mission/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra... Unless I missed something, it seems to me that NASA is being highly strategic and practical, in contrast to theoretical debate.
- tigershark 4y ago
  And let’s not forget the 14 engines static fire earlier that put it just behind SLS power with less than half the engines: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-14-engine-test-fire https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-14-engine-...
tigershark 4y ago
"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. So if I were you I would shut up, just in case, given that SLS flew 7 years later than expected and Bolden was destroyed for his laughable interview. Falcon heavy is delivering real payloads, Starship will do the same soon, SLS will maybe fly another time of two before retirement. I can’t wait to see your post next time that SLS will fly.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Sure, we'll have to wait and see. I hope you also agree that, if Starship is also delayed 7 years, the decision to go with SLS was not in fact a problem, even if it only flies once or twice a year and is completely replaced by Starship after 7 years.