6 ms·

An offworld base would need the financial backing of nation states. But from a purely business side of things, does this open up any new possibilities? I'm gue

An offworld base would need the financial backing of nation states. But from a purely business side of things, does this open up any new possibilities? I'm guessing Starlink will get less expensive to operate - but will it be to the point it'll displace cell towers? Earth observations satellites would be cheaper to put up... so maybe we'll get a few more than before. But are there any real game changers?

vvillena 3y ago
The previous limiting factors for launching stuff off-world were weight and size. Such constraints were tackled by old innovations like assembling space stations using modules launched separately, or more recently, with inflatable modules like BEAM (sadly not in development anymore). With Starship, most of this goes away. It becomes possible to launch bigger, heavier (that is, cheaper) stuff to space. Still high-tech stuff, for sure, but engineers will be able to make more tradeoffs, because there won't be a need to optimize everything to be small and light.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  Okay, I get the margins get more cushy. But one could see it being something like space launch getting 10x cheaper and that maybe translates into 3x demand for satellites. The first earth observatory was worth an astronomical amount of money, but the hundredth or thousandth is far down the tail of diminishing returns. I just really wonder how much money can they make off of all of this even in the best case scenario. There isn't an infinite demand for putting things up into space. There are demand inflection points. If it's so cheap you can go up for your birthday, or can do transatlantic flights, then it's a bit different - but nobody is talking about it ever getting THAT cheap. If Starlinks starts making all telecom providers obsolete then that'd also present something radically different and a huge amount of revenue. But I don't think they're able to do that either I feel the primary reason people stopped caring about space after Apollo is because there are simply insufficient economic incentives. The list of things you can do is short.. Telecom, Telescopes looking down, tourism, space mining Everything else is on taxpayer dollar
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    > If it's so cheap you can go up for your birthday, or can do transatlantic flights, then it's a bit different - but nobody is talking about it ever getting THAT cheap Actually, Shotwell has. She has speculated that they could eventually do a trans-Pacific hop for the price of a first class plane ticket.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      That will never work. You'll spend more time traveling to and from the remote launch facilities than you would flying conventionally from a nearby international airport. Destinations would also be severely limited by technology export laws; maybe it could be arranged for a handful of friendly nations / strategies allies like Japan or Australia, but most of the world would be scratched off the list. When Shotwell and Musk talk about stuff like that or Mars colonies, they're hyping the company to attract more talent. If you loom at what they're actually building, it's all satellite launchers.
      - imtringued 3y ago
        Someone downvoted you because you have hit a nerve. Don't mind those people.
      - chpatrick 3y ago
        I don't know, Dallas to Sydney is a 17 hour flight now. If it takes 30 minutes on a rocket from Texas you have 16 hours to do everything else and you'll still get there faster.
      - dzader 3y ago
        [dead]
    - antonvs 3y ago
      If that was just intended to forecast costs, then it’s a good analogy. But I thought SpaceX went further than that. This Adam Something video provides some amusing coverage of the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUiIdre-MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUiIdre-MI
- lupusreal 3y ago
  [dead]
- api 3y ago
  If you want to build spaceships to fly around the solar system, being light still matters a lot and inflatable modules are a great idea. That’s because your constraint is delta-V which is expressed in terms of the mass you are moving around. More mass requires more propellant and energy… which means more mass requires more mass.
- godshatter 3y ago
  If they use Starship to bootstrap mining, refining, and manufacturing in space, then this ceases to become a problem. At that point we're talking about how much cargo Starship can move, not how much infrastructure.
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  > Such constraints were tackled by old innovations like assembling space stations using modules launched separately, or more recently, with inflatable modules like BEAM (sadly not in development anymore). Another good example is JWST, which required an elaborate (and therefore risky) "unfolding" process. The costs of such approaches seem somewhat self-reinforcing: a failure would be very costly, so it's worth spending more on validation and testing; that extra expense would make a failure even more costly, justifying even more spending on testing! (In that sense it's similar to the tyranny of the rocket equation: having to carry more propellant in order to propel that extra propellant!)
hajola 3y ago
There are manufacturing processes that benefit from microgravity (e.g. growing protein crystals for the pharma industry, producing semiconductors, etc). Beyond that it would be a significant boon for science.
- seper8 3y ago
  Semiconductors and microgravity, can you elaborate on what part of the production process would be improved?
  - sushibowl 3y ago
    There's a paper on the subject here: https://osf.io/d6ar4/ https://osf.io/d6ar4/ Seems like the primary benefit comes to silicon wafer manufacturing. Growing pure silicon crystal is much easier to do in a microgravity, vacuum environment: > The study reported that for semiconductor crystals processed in LEO compared to terrestrial samples, more than 80 percent improved in either one or a combination of structure, uniformity, reduction of defects, and/or electrical and optical properties–and some by orders of magnitude For actual device manufacturing, there are potential benefits as well, but this is less well researched area (possibly as a result of the difficulty of getting advanced IC manufacturing equipment into earth orbit).
    - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
      I do somewhat doubt that the economics would work out. Silicon wafers are expensive, but I'm not sure if the price is currently higher than that of launching a bunch of sand to low earth orbit.
      - kiba 3y ago
        You wouldn't launch sands to LEO, but the equipment used for bootstrapping a mining operation on the moon or asteroid.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        I think the point is you'd be able to build products in space that you cannot build on Earth for any cost currently.
davedx 3y ago
> An offworld base would need the financial backing of nation states. It really depends on what we mean by "offworld base". There is extensive literature on how this might be done "on a shoestring budget". Start here: https://www.marssociety.org/concepts/mars-direct/ https://www.marssociety.org/concepts/mars-direct/
- tim333 3y ago
  You could cut costs a lot if you used robots rather than humans to build things. I'm not sure how the Tesla bot is coming along but you never know.
loceng 3y ago
I believe an idea that circulated early on in the media in regards to SpaceX, whether rumour or real, is that Musk was planning to basically do a reality TV-like show - and be able to fund the colony on Mars through that; who on Earth wouldn't want to watch the first humans land on Mars, live on Mars - and what "influencers" might volunteer to be some of the first to "report on" the experience, as entertainment - for better or worse? He's also more recently said the revenues from Starlink, aiming to be at least $5+ billion monthly recurring revenue, will fund his Mars colony. The reality is though he's now tapped into accessing the full abundance of the universe, and he's at least 1-2 decades ahead of everyone else, in part due to the synergy of his various projects: Starlink, Boring Company, Tesla, etc - all are technology that he'll need for Mars - so he can funnel revenues/sales back into those companies]; and Musk understands exponentials of scaled paths, and so him being 1-2 decades ahead, with the synergy of the multiple companies he owns/controls, every year he has the chance to leapfrog ahead another decade of any other competition.
raisedbyninjas 3y ago
If we diverted 10% of the DoD budget, we could launch 800,000 tons, about 5,300 starships, per year.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  What about the cost of the actual cargo? I don't think Moon base infrastructure is cheap.
- ryandvm 3y ago
  Hard to fathom the damage to society that Elon could do if we funnel 10% of our defense budget through his companies.
  - eagerpace 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - brandonagr2 3y ago
    Accelerating the transition to sustainable energy and expanding access to space is damaging to society how exactly?
    - Const-me 3y ago
      Musk is collaborating with fascists. Here’s an example: https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-speak-russian-conference-175628509.html https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-speak-russian-conference-17...
      - marcusverus 3y ago
        Attending a conference in Russia is collaborating with fascists? This comment is hysterical in every sense of the word.
        Const-me 3y ago

vvillena 3y ago

The previous limiting factors for launching stuff off-world were weight and size. Such constraints were tackled by old innovations like assembling space stations using modules launched separately, or more recently, with inflatable modules like BEAM (sadly not in development anymore). With Starship, most of this goes away. It becomes possible to launch bigger, heavier (that is, cheaper) stuff to space. Still high-tech stuff, for sure, but engineers will be able to make more tradeoffs, because there won't be a need to optimize everything to be small and light.

contrarian1234 3y ago
Okay, I get the margins get more cushy. But one could see it being something like space launch getting 10x cheaper and that maybe translates into 3x demand for satellites. The first earth observatory was worth an astronomical amount of money, but the hundredth or thousandth is far down the tail of diminishing returns. I just really wonder how much money can they make off of all of this even in the best case scenario. There isn't an infinite demand for putting things up into space. There are demand inflection points. If it's so cheap you can go up for your birthday, or can do transatlantic flights, then it's a bit different - but nobody is talking about it ever getting THAT cheap. If Starlinks starts making all telecom providers obsolete then that'd also present something radically different and a huge amount of revenue. But I don't think they're able to do that either I feel the primary reason people stopped caring about space after Apollo is because there are simply insufficient economic incentives. The list of things you can do is short.. Telecom, Telescopes looking down, tourism, space mining Everything else is on taxpayer dollar
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  > If it's so cheap you can go up for your birthday, or can do transatlantic flights, then it's a bit different - but nobody is talking about it ever getting THAT cheap Actually, Shotwell has. She has speculated that they could eventually do a trans-Pacific hop for the price of a first class plane ticket.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    That will never work. You'll spend more time traveling to and from the remote launch facilities than you would flying conventionally from a nearby international airport. Destinations would also be severely limited by technology export laws; maybe it could be arranged for a handful of friendly nations / strategies allies like Japan or Australia, but most of the world would be scratched off the list. When Shotwell and Musk talk about stuff like that or Mars colonies, they're hyping the company to attract more talent. If you loom at what they're actually building, it's all satellite launchers.
    - imtringued 3y ago
      Someone downvoted you because you have hit a nerve. Don't mind those people.
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      I don't know, Dallas to Sydney is a 17 hour flight now. If it takes 30 minutes on a rocket from Texas you have 16 hours to do everything else and you'll still get there faster.
    - dzader 3y ago
      [dead]
  - antonvs 3y ago
    If that was just intended to forecast costs, then it’s a good analogy. But I thought SpaceX went further than that. This Adam Something video provides some amusing coverage of the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUiIdre-MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUiIdre-MI
lupusreal 3y ago
[dead]
api 3y ago
If you want to build spaceships to fly around the solar system, being light still matters a lot and inflatable modules are a great idea. That’s because your constraint is delta-V which is expressed in terms of the mass you are moving around. More mass requires more propellant and energy… which means more mass requires more mass.
godshatter 3y ago
If they use Starship to bootstrap mining, refining, and manufacturing in space, then this ceases to become a problem. At that point we're talking about how much cargo Starship can move, not how much infrastructure.
chriswarbo 3y ago
> Such constraints were tackled by old innovations like assembling space stations using modules launched separately, or more recently, with inflatable modules like BEAM (sadly not in development anymore). Another good example is JWST, which required an elaborate (and therefore risky) "unfolding" process. The costs of such approaches seem somewhat self-reinforcing: a failure would be very costly, so it's worth spending more on validation and testing; that extra expense would make a failure even more costly, justifying even more spending on testing! (In that sense it's similar to the tyranny of the rocket equation: having to carry more propellant in order to propel that extra propellant!)

hajola 3y ago

There are manufacturing processes that benefit from microgravity (e.g. growing protein crystals for the pharma industry, producing semiconductors, etc). Beyond that it would be a significant boon for science.

seper8 3y ago
Semiconductors and microgravity, can you elaborate on what part of the production process would be improved?
- sushibowl 3y ago
  There's a paper on the subject here: https://osf.io/d6ar4/ https://osf.io/d6ar4/ Seems like the primary benefit comes to silicon wafer manufacturing. Growing pure silicon crystal is much easier to do in a microgravity, vacuum environment: > The study reported that for semiconductor crystals processed in LEO compared to terrestrial samples, more than 80 percent improved in either one or a combination of structure, uniformity, reduction of defects, and/or electrical and optical properties–and some by orders of magnitude For actual device manufacturing, there are potential benefits as well, but this is less well researched area (possibly as a result of the difficulty of getting advanced IC manufacturing equipment into earth orbit).
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    I do somewhat doubt that the economics would work out. Silicon wafers are expensive, but I'm not sure if the price is currently higher than that of launching a bunch of sand to low earth orbit.
    - kiba 3y ago
      You wouldn't launch sands to LEO, but the equipment used for bootstrapping a mining operation on the moon or asteroid.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I think the point is you'd be able to build products in space that you cannot build on Earth for any cost currently.

davedx 3y ago

> An offworld base would need the financial backing of nation states. It really depends on what we mean by "offworld base". There is extensive literature on how this might be done "on a shoestring budget". Start here: https://www.marssociety.org/concepts/mars-direct/ https://www.marssociety.org/concepts/mars-direct/

tim333 3y ago
You could cut costs a lot if you used robots rather than humans to build things. I'm not sure how the Tesla bot is coming along but you never know.

loceng 3y ago

I believe an idea that circulated early on in the media in regards to SpaceX, whether rumour or real, is that Musk was planning to basically do a reality TV-like show - and be able to fund the colony on Mars through that; who on Earth wouldn't want to watch the first humans land on Mars, live on Mars - and what "influencers" might volunteer to be some of the first to "report on" the experience, as entertainment - for better or worse? He's also more recently said the revenues from Starlink, aiming to be at least $5+ billion monthly recurring revenue, will fund his Mars colony. The reality is though he's now tapped into accessing the full abundance of the universe, and he's at least 1-2 decades ahead of everyone else, in part due to the synergy of his various projects: Starlink, Boring Company, Tesla, etc - all are technology that he'll need for Mars - so he can funnel revenues/sales back into those companies]; and Musk understands exponentials of scaled paths, and so him being 1-2 decades ahead, with the synergy of the multiple companies he owns/controls, every year he has the chance to leapfrog ahead another decade of any other competition.

raisedbyninjas 3y ago

If we diverted 10% of the DoD budget, we could launch 800,000 tons, about 5,300 starships, per year.

itsoktocry 3y ago
What about the cost of the actual cargo? I don't think Moon base infrastructure is cheap.
ryandvm 3y ago
Hard to fathom the damage to society that Elon could do if we funnel 10% of our defense budget through his companies.
- eagerpace 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- brandonagr2 3y ago
  Accelerating the transition to sustainable energy and expanding access to space is damaging to society how exactly?
  - Const-me 3y ago
    Musk is collaborating with fascists. Here’s an example: https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-speak-russian-conference-175628509.html https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-speak-russian-conference-17...
    - marcusverus 3y ago
      Attending a conference in Russia is collaborating with fascists? This comment is hysterical in every sense of the word.
      - Const-me 3y ago