4 ms·

the novelty is how to handle such scale. Sure, if we build a million rockets it'll be cheaper, but how do we USE those rockets and get funding at "relative pea

the novelty is how to handle such scale. Sure, if we build a million rockets it'll be cheaper, but how do we USE those rockets and get funding at "relative peace time". SpaceX's real innovation was starlink in allowing it to "Soak up" excess production. Besides the obvious of reusability, which wasn't that "Obvious" considering the temperatures of reentry.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> SpaceX's real innovation was starlink in allowing it to "Soak up" excess production SpaceX had a lot of real innovations. Starlink is one of them, but it’s not in the top five.
- gertlex 3y ago
  Might be referring to top "business plan innovations".
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Might be referring to top "business plan innovations" No. 1 and No. 2 are positing a private space company and mass manufacturing. Those are, hands down, SpaceX's transformational business plan innovations. COTS, No. 3, is a business-engineering hybrid. Using NASA funds as stepping stones, versus treating them as the ends, No. 4. Maybe we can slot Starlink into No. 5, but it wasn’t unpredictable; telecom was always the moneymaker in space. (I’d argue published pricing with online ordering nudges it out.)
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    Starlink isn't even a new idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic As always, ideas are cheap. SpaceX is doing well because it's actually managing to successfully implement lots of old fantastical ideas.
btilly 3y ago
Actually, reusability was an obvious idea from the start. For example the Space Shuttle and the McDonnell Douglas DC-X are examples of attempts at reusability in the USA, and other countries had their own experiments. It just became non-obvious that it was the right approach after a long history of failed attempts at it.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  The Shuttle was the only serious attempt. And even then, they dropped the largest structural part and used solids that can't practically be reused anyway. The DC-X is just a research project, that they would ever develop a reusable launch was basically fantasy. The same in other countries, very little actual large investments. The Soviet Shuttle was even less reusable then the US one. And that was actually pretty smart of them. So I don't think that were that many real failed attempts. There was practically speaking one real attempt.
- SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago
  it was always the "Right approach" and everyone knew that there was nothing in the laws of physics that prohibits this. But you are writing that as if it's still be solved. No one has ever had a fully reusable orbital rocket.. still to this day. Althought starships got a shot.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    It should be noted that reusable rockets are fundamentally less cargo per trip than non-reusable ones, since the reusable rockets have to carry extra fuel for re-entry. The sweetspot of having enough mass to orbit so that this reduced capacity is still worth it is not at all easy to reach. In general, if rocket building costs could really be reduced to almost nothing, reusable rockets would be useless. The only case where reusable rockets have a chance is if building rockets is still very expensive.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      Even if building rockets can be cheap, not all rockets/use-cases can be solved cheaply.
mlsu 3y ago
Starlink wasn't really considered for years until SpaceX already was well underway. It was fortuitous but unplanned, not a factor in the original vision of the company when it was founded.
- twic 3y ago
  Before Starlink, SpaceX assumed/hoped that a mass of new customers would come out of the woodwork when cheap launches became available (the easyJet strategy!). When they didn't, they came up with Starlink to be that customer.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    Although, aren't they launching something pretty much daily or weekly, even without accounting for Starlink? It just isn't in the news much.
    - twic 3y ago
      I picked September last year [1] more or less at random; SpaceX launches by day of the month: 01 - Starlink 02 - military 04 - Starlink 09 - Starlink 12 - Starlink 16 - Starlink 20 - Starlink 24 - Starlink 25 - Starlink 30 - Starlink A skim through the other months suggests that per month, there is usually one US government launch, zero to two commercial or rideshare launches, and a bunch of Starlink launches. There is an amazing range of stuff on the rideshares! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_July%E2%80%93December_2023#September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_i...
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        There are lots of new costumers. The thing is just that most of those don't need the huge sats of the past. And also people lose perspective. What we have to remember is how few launches other large rockets used to have. Ariane 5 the commercial success story peaked at 7 launches. So yes, new costumers, but not enough to go from 7 to 100+.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> SpaceX's real innovation was starlink in allowing it to "Soak up" excess production SpaceX had a lot of real innovations. Starlink is one of them, but it’s not in the top five.

gertlex 3y ago
Might be referring to top "business plan innovations".
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Might be referring to top "business plan innovations" No. 1 and No. 2 are positing a private space company and mass manufacturing. Those are, hands down, SpaceX's transformational business plan innovations. COTS, No. 3, is a business-engineering hybrid. Using NASA funds as stepping stones, versus treating them as the ends, No. 4. Maybe we can slot Starlink into No. 5, but it wasn’t unpredictable; telecom was always the moneymaker in space. (I’d argue published pricing with online ordering nudges it out.)
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Starlink isn't even a new idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic As always, ideas are cheap. SpaceX is doing well because it's actually managing to successfully implement lots of old fantastical ideas.

btilly 3y ago

Actually, reusability was an obvious idea from the start. For example the Space Shuttle and the McDonnell Douglas DC-X are examples of attempts at reusability in the USA, and other countries had their own experiments. It just became non-obvious that it was the right approach after a long history of failed attempts at it.

panick21_ 3y ago
The Shuttle was the only serious attempt. And even then, they dropped the largest structural part and used solids that can't practically be reused anyway. The DC-X is just a research project, that they would ever develop a reusable launch was basically fantasy. The same in other countries, very little actual large investments. The Soviet Shuttle was even less reusable then the US one. And that was actually pretty smart of them. So I don't think that were that many real failed attempts. There was practically speaking one real attempt.
SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago
it was always the "Right approach" and everyone knew that there was nothing in the laws of physics that prohibits this. But you are writing that as if it's still be solved. No one has ever had a fully reusable orbital rocket.. still to this day. Althought starships got a shot.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  It should be noted that reusable rockets are fundamentally less cargo per trip than non-reusable ones, since the reusable rockets have to carry extra fuel for re-entry. The sweetspot of having enough mass to orbit so that this reduced capacity is still worth it is not at all easy to reach. In general, if rocket building costs could really be reduced to almost nothing, reusable rockets would be useless. The only case where reusable rockets have a chance is if building rockets is still very expensive.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    Even if building rockets can be cheap, not all rockets/use-cases can be solved cheaply.

mlsu 3y ago

Starlink wasn't really considered for years until SpaceX already was well underway. It was fortuitous but unplanned, not a factor in the original vision of the company when it was founded.

twic 3y ago
Before Starlink, SpaceX assumed/hoped that a mass of new customers would come out of the woodwork when cheap launches became available (the easyJet strategy!). When they didn't, they came up with Starlink to be that customer.
- foobarian 3y ago
  Although, aren't they launching something pretty much daily or weekly, even without accounting for Starlink? It just isn't in the news much.
  - twic 3y ago
    I picked September last year [1] more or less at random; SpaceX launches by day of the month: 01 - Starlink 02 - military 04 - Starlink 09 - Starlink 12 - Starlink 16 - Starlink 20 - Starlink 24 - Starlink 25 - Starlink 30 - Starlink A skim through the other months suggests that per month, there is usually one US government launch, zero to two commercial or rideshare launches, and a bunch of Starlink launches. There is an amazing range of stuff on the rideshares! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_July%E2%80%93December_2023#September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_i...
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      There are lots of new costumers. The thing is just that most of those don't need the huge sats of the past. And also people lose perspective. What we have to remember is how few launches other large rockets used to have. Ariane 5 the commercial success story peaked at 7 launches. So yes, new costumers, but not enough to go from 7 to 100+.