4 ms·

>total or 21 starship flights costing $21 milion Where can I book a Starship flight for $1M?

ben_w 4y ago
While I think even twice that is more than a bit optimistic, this story was claiming a target price of $2m/launch: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-... But even at $100m/launch, a big fat copper wire (IIRC aluminium is better per unit mass) would still make more sense than shipping up a nuclear reactor or a huge pile of batteries, and that part of this hypothetical mission would still be about 80% cheaper than the JWST.
- skykooler 4y ago
  Aluminum is also probably better because it’s easy to source on the moon - many of the surface rocks are made of aluminum oxides. Copper, on the other hand, would need to be entirely transported from Earth.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Indeed. I wonder, how hard is it to make aluminium from the oxide if you're bootstrapping and in a vacuum? I know the normal process is "melt it with added cryolites and apply current for electrolysis", but if the goal is low mass rather than good energy efficiency, can you do it a different way? Like, what happens if you focus sunlight and just melt it, does the oxygen bubble out in a vacuum, or is this just going to do vapor deposition of sapphire on all nearby surfaces?
    - skykooler 4y ago
      I believe molten alumina does not separate naturally - you’d still need to electrolyze it. This can be done without cryolite although at higher temperature and correspondingly higher energy usage. Otherwise the aluminum and oxygen would remain bound while they evaporate.
- hericium 4y ago
  There's a price calculator available: https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/ https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Yeah, but (on mobile at least) that's just Falcon 9 ride-shares to [SSO, LEO, polar], not dedicated Starship to the moon. Starship is supposed to be cheaper, the moon is definitely more expensive.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  The $/launch numbers don't account for the refueling flights, which will be necessary to get to and return from the lunar surface. That would bump that number up to ~$10m/$20m or so. Still ridiculously cheap and not likely to be anywhere close to the price charged as it would absolutely sink the rest of the market, which SpaceX is not interested in doing.

While I think even twice that is more than a bit optimistic, this story was claiming a target price of $2m/launch: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-... But even at $100m/launch, a big fat copper wire (IIRC aluminium is better per unit mass) would still make more sense than shipping up a nuclear reactor or a huge pile of batteries, and that part of this hypothetical mission would still be about 80% cheaper than the JWST.

skykooler 4y ago
Aluminum is also probably better because it’s easy to source on the moon - many of the surface rocks are made of aluminum oxides. Copper, on the other hand, would need to be entirely transported from Earth.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Indeed. I wonder, how hard is it to make aluminium from the oxide if you're bootstrapping and in a vacuum? I know the normal process is "melt it with added cryolites and apply current for electrolysis", but if the goal is low mass rather than good energy efficiency, can you do it a different way? Like, what happens if you focus sunlight and just melt it, does the oxygen bubble out in a vacuum, or is this just going to do vapor deposition of sapphire on all nearby surfaces?
  - skykooler 4y ago
    I believe molten alumina does not separate naturally - you’d still need to electrolyze it. This can be done without cryolite although at higher temperature and correspondingly higher energy usage. Otherwise the aluminum and oxygen would remain bound while they evaporate.
hericium 4y ago
There's a price calculator available: https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/ https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/
- ben_w 4y ago
  Yeah, but (on mobile at least) that's just Falcon 9 ride-shares to [SSO, LEO, polar], not dedicated Starship to the moon. Starship is supposed to be cheaper, the moon is definitely more expensive.
dotnet00 4y ago
The $/launch numbers don't account for the refueling flights, which will be necessary to get to and return from the lunar surface. That would bump that number up to ~$10m/$20m or so. Still ridiculously cheap and not likely to be anywhere close to the price charged as it would absolutely sink the rest of the market, which SpaceX is not interested in doing.