3 ms·

> Why did they choose this option to begin with Because this will be the first time in history that the cost of a launch will be mostly the cost of the fuel. T

> Why did they choose this option to begin with Because this will be the first time in history that the cost of a launch will be mostly the cost of the fuel. This is the first fully reusable rocket in history. If you had to throw away a dozen tankers it wouldn’t make any sense.

alemanek 3y ago
Also being able to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon is a fantastic reason as well. Everyone can bring a set of golf clubs and balls. Heck we can setup a little driving range with the extra mass allowance.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Notably, we don't need to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon. Or golf clubs. Stable hypergolic fuel would be useful, but there are no plans for that.
  - alemanek 3y ago
    NASA has stated they want to maintain a long term presence on the moon. If we take them at their word then we absolutely do need to be able to bring 100 tons to the surface of the moon. Water, food, air, parts, habitats, ..etc. All of that adds up. Super Heavy lift capability and refueling will be vital to making those plans feasible.
danbruc 3y ago
How many flights do they want to get out of each rocket? For Falcon 9 the current record seems to be 18 which would be about one moon mission. They will have to go far beyond that, otherwise it would essentially be an expendable system - one rocket, one mission, just with a couple of launches each costing time and money and probably increasing the risk. Then again, if one does the accounting in terms of mass delivered to the moon, it would probably look more favorable even if they could only get one mission out of each rocket.
- Klathmon 3y ago
  It's a crazy sounding goal, but I've heard the idea thrown around that they want them to be closer to airliners in terms of numbers of flights. I have no idea if that's just Elon spouting nonsense or if it's realistic, but that seems to be the goal.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    It’s not just the goal it’s the whole point. I’m not saying it will be achieved but that is the reason it exists and every promised capability is predicated on full reusability.

alemanek 3y ago

Also being able to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon is a fantastic reason as well. Everyone can bring a set of golf clubs and balls. Heck we can setup a little driving range with the extra mass allowance.

angiosperm 3y ago
Notably, we don't need to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon. Or golf clubs. Stable hypergolic fuel would be useful, but there are no plans for that.
- alemanek 3y ago
  NASA has stated they want to maintain a long term presence on the moon. If we take them at their word then we absolutely do need to be able to bring 100 tons to the surface of the moon. Water, food, air, parts, habitats, ..etc. All of that adds up. Super Heavy lift capability and refueling will be vital to making those plans feasible.

danbruc 3y ago

How many flights do they want to get out of each rocket? For Falcon 9 the current record seems to be 18 which would be about one moon mission. They will have to go far beyond that, otherwise it would essentially be an expendable system - one rocket, one mission, just with a couple of launches each costing time and money and probably increasing the risk. Then again, if one does the accounting in terms of mass delivered to the moon, it would probably look more favorable even if they could only get one mission out of each rocket.

Klathmon 3y ago
It's a crazy sounding goal, but I've heard the idea thrown around that they want them to be closer to airliners in terms of numbers of flights. I have no idea if that's just Elon spouting nonsense or if it's realistic, but that seems to be the goal.
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  It’s not just the goal it’s the whole point. I’m not saying it will be achieved but that is the reason it exists and every promised capability is predicated on full reusability.