5 ms·

is this a generally agreed-upon fact? I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm interested to see a defense of it.

by ledauphin 4y ago

lsh123 4y ago
The number Mask is targeting is $10/kg to orbit. With all supplies, it means under $10k / person for a week in orbit.
- TOMDM 4y ago
  Is that target $10kg to orbit and back? I imagine the price of getting mass back down from orbit would bump your cost up a bit right?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lsh123 4y ago
    I already doubled it ;)
  - simonh 4y ago
    The starship upper stage has to come back down anyway, so I don’t see why you’d need to double the cost.
    - TOMDM 4y ago
      The upper stage coming down empty vs full of cargo are entirely different beasts surely?
    - dev_tty01 4y ago
      Every kilogram of mass added to the return trip increases the required deceleration, fuel, etc. Not cheap. At some point you can't reach orbit with the required fuel to get everything back. The Falcon 9 boosters are nearly empty when they come back. As a matter of fact, at least one of their early landing failures was because they cut the fuel load too close and ran out of fuel just before reaching the ground. Minimizing weight on the return landing is critical.
- WheatMillington 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Well the topic of the thread is "if this concept succeeds".
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    If a single one of those bridges is anything like launching astronauts to the space station in a reusable private spacecraft and launch system from american soil, it's worth buying.
  - fijiaarone 4y ago
    Sign me up for thirteen bridges on the installment plan.
  - the_optimist 4y ago
    Can you please inform on where you derive your information from? It seems like a valuable source of negative-weight bias.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Do you have history of successful bridge spellings I could look up?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  That doesn't include the cost of a vehicle that can support you for a week and re-enter and land safely, and does not include cost of ground systems to support the mission and recover you. Nor training or regulatory compliance costs. It's just the mass to orbit. Even if Starship delivers everything promised, I doubt orbit would be within reach of wage earners. Similarly we could afford to pay for a ship to drop a few tons of rock off Guam, but going to the bottom of the Mariana trench and returning alive would be a different kettle of fish.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The target that's rather optimistic. Initially I would expect at leasy 20x that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
midland_trucker 4y ago
Perhaps a lot of people wouldn't agree and I admit I'm stirring up debate a bit to see what other people think. To me it seems if we see orbital success in the next 5 yrs, mass production of starship thereafter and SpaceX sticking to their Earth-to-Earth transport idea - this seems plausible. Airliners developed about as quick, but then again its a far harder environment - it's nice to dream. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 (edit rambling on about the wrong system)
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Airliners also developed in the context of a state supported system that used regulated high ticket prices and mail route subsidies to keep the industry alive for any needed pivot to military aircraft. I don’t know that there is the stomach for such a system today.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Wonder how fast such a system could move cargo between the US and London/EU? Seems potentially a bunch quicker than current air transport (~12 hours)?
    - Telemakhos 4y ago
      I wonder how fast Starship could move 100 tons of troops and materiel to a war front.
      - giantrobot 4y ago
        The C-5 Galaxy can transport 127 tons and land at normal airports with at least one order of magnitude lower per kg prices. A C-17 can transport 77 tons. More importantly they can actually unload their cargo once they land. A Starship would need either special facilities or an as-yet undersigned integral crane to unload cargo.
      - idontwantthis 4y ago

is this a generally agreed-upon fact? I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm interested to see a defense of it.

lsh123 4y ago

The number Mask is targeting is $10/kg to orbit. With all supplies, it means under $10k / person for a week in orbit.

TOMDM 4y ago
Is that target $10kg to orbit and back? I imagine the price of getting mass back down from orbit would bump your cost up a bit right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lsh123 4y ago
  I already doubled it ;)
- simonh 4y ago
  The starship upper stage has to come back down anyway, so I don’t see why you’d need to double the cost.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    The upper stage coming down empty vs full of cargo are entirely different beasts surely?
  - dev_tty01 4y ago
    Every kilogram of mass added to the return trip increases the required deceleration, fuel, etc. Not cheap. At some point you can't reach orbit with the required fuel to get everything back. The Falcon 9 boosters are nearly empty when they come back. As a matter of fact, at least one of their early landing failures was because they cut the fuel load too close and ran out of fuel just before reaching the ground. Minimizing weight on the return landing is critical.
WheatMillington 4y ago
[flagged]
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Well the topic of the thread is "if this concept succeeds".
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  If a single one of those bridges is anything like launching astronauts to the space station in a reusable private spacecraft and launch system from american soil, it's worth buying.
- fijiaarone 4y ago
  Sign me up for thirteen bridges on the installment plan.
- the_optimist 4y ago
  Can you please inform on where you derive your information from? It seems like a valuable source of negative-weight bias.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Do you have history of successful bridge spellings I could look up?
throwawaylinux 4y ago
That doesn't include the cost of a vehicle that can support you for a week and re-enter and land safely, and does not include cost of ground systems to support the mission and recover you. Nor training or regulatory compliance costs. It's just the mass to orbit. Even if Starship delivers everything promised, I doubt orbit would be within reach of wage earners. Similarly we could afford to pay for a ship to drop a few tons of rock off Guam, but going to the bottom of the Mariana trench and returning alive would be a different kettle of fish.
AstralStorm 4y ago
The target that's rather optimistic. Initially I would expect at leasy 20x that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

midland_trucker 4y ago

Perhaps a lot of people wouldn't agree and I admit I'm stirring up debate a bit to see what other people think. To me it seems if we see orbital success in the next 5 yrs, mass production of starship thereafter and SpaceX sticking to their Earth-to-Earth transport idea - this seems plausible. Airliners developed about as quick, but then again its a far harder environment - it's nice to dream. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 (edit rambling on about the wrong system)

bobthepanda 4y ago
Airliners also developed in the context of a state supported system that used regulated high ticket prices and mail route subsidies to keep the industry alive for any needed pivot to military aircraft. I don’t know that there is the stomach for such a system today.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Wonder how fast such a system could move cargo between the US and London/EU? Seems potentially a bunch quicker than current air transport (~12 hours)?
  - Telemakhos 4y ago
    I wonder how fast Starship could move 100 tons of troops and materiel to a war front.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      The C-5 Galaxy can transport 127 tons and land at normal airports with at least one order of magnitude lower per kg prices. A C-17 can transport 77 tons. More importantly they can actually unload their cargo once they land. A Starship would need either special facilities or an as-yet undersigned integral crane to unload cargo.
    - idontwantthis 4y ago