4 ms·

They have a great pipeline for building ships. They want reusability, but for near-term needs like deploying bigger Starlink satellites and their moon lander co

They have a great pipeline for building ships. They want reusability, but for near-term needs like deploying bigger Starlink satellites and their moon lander contract they could probably power through without reentry survival. It would be expensive, but unlike in-orbit refueling not really mission critical

TMWNN 3y ago
My understanding is that Starship is financially comparable to Falcon 9 on a per-payload basis even if fully expended.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  If so that would be amazing.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Comparable to Falcon 9? Unlikely - they've got three dozen Raptor engines on that thing, which alone account for the entire cost (not price) of a Falcon 9 flight. Maybe it is comparable to legacy launch providers, such as the Deltas and Atlases. But unlikely comparable to a Falcon 9 launch, even considering the larger payload.
  - avmich 3y ago
    In https://payloadspace.com/starship-report/ https://payloadspace.com/starship-report/ the cost of Falcon-9 launch is estimated as $15M. One Raptor is less than $1M, but full Starship has 39 Raptors. Starship will be much more attractive when it will become fully reusable though.
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    You are launching 8x more payload vs ~15 reuses of Falcon9
    - senectus1 3y ago
      the weights isn't the only upgrade, the SIZE is another very important metric.... They'll be able to get much larger objects up there without having to piece them together up there. Especially important for habitable objects and factory objects.
      - dotancohen 3y ago
        The current iteration of Starship has a payload bay door fit only for the Starlink satellite.
        senectus1 3y ago
        "The current iteration" is also just a proof of concept. Their published plans include fliptop and large bay doors. not to mention the HLS (Human Landing System) that includes an airlock.
- thinkcontext 3y ago
  That's what they aspire to. The only way to get there is if they are able to achieve reuse into the dozens of times and there's no guarantee they will be able to do that. I hope they are able to but there's still a lot of work to get there.
ncallaway 3y ago
> but for near-term needs like deploying bigger Starlink satellites and their moon lander contract they could probably power through without reentry survival Starlink sat deployment, probably. I’m not convinced on the moon lander contract though. Each mission requires the moon lander itself, plus a number of tanker launches to refuel the moon lander. I think it’s something like 8-15 tanker launches. If each of those tanker launches is an expendable vehicle that’s… probably economically survivable, but definitely not sustainable.
- imtringued 3y ago
  If you can't reuse the boosters, then a series of Starship launches to the moon will cost as much as one SLS. The complex launch architecture demands reusability. It's a deal-breaker without it.
- generalizations 3y ago
  Though, if the tankers are expendable they won't have to reserve fuel for the landing, and the number needed to refuel would probably be at the lower end of that estimate - maybe even 6-10?

TMWNN 3y ago

My understanding is that Starship is financially comparable to Falcon 9 on a per-payload basis even if fully expended.

cryptonector 3y ago
If so that would be amazing.
dotancohen 3y ago
Comparable to Falcon 9? Unlikely - they've got three dozen Raptor engines on that thing, which alone account for the entire cost (not price) of a Falcon 9 flight. Maybe it is comparable to legacy launch providers, such as the Deltas and Atlases. But unlikely comparable to a Falcon 9 launch, even considering the larger payload.
- avmich 3y ago
  In https://payloadspace.com/starship-report/ https://payloadspace.com/starship-report/ the cost of Falcon-9 launch is estimated as $15M. One Raptor is less than $1M, but full Starship has 39 Raptors. Starship will be much more attractive when it will become fully reusable though.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  You are launching 8x more payload vs ~15 reuses of Falcon9
  - senectus1 3y ago
    the weights isn't the only upgrade, the SIZE is another very important metric.... They'll be able to get much larger objects up there without having to piece them together up there. Especially important for habitable objects and factory objects.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      The current iteration of Starship has a payload bay door fit only for the Starlink satellite.
      - senectus1 3y ago
        "The current iteration" is also just a proof of concept. Their published plans include fliptop and large bay doors. not to mention the HLS (Human Landing System) that includes an airlock.
thinkcontext 3y ago
That's what they aspire to. The only way to get there is if they are able to achieve reuse into the dozens of times and there's no guarantee they will be able to do that. I hope they are able to but there's still a lot of work to get there.

ncallaway 3y ago

> but for near-term needs like deploying bigger Starlink satellites and their moon lander contract they could probably power through without reentry survival Starlink sat deployment, probably. I’m not convinced on the moon lander contract though. Each mission requires the moon lander itself, plus a number of tanker launches to refuel the moon lander. I think it’s something like 8-15 tanker launches. If each of those tanker launches is an expendable vehicle that’s… probably economically survivable, but definitely not sustainable.

imtringued 3y ago
If you can't reuse the boosters, then a series of Starship launches to the moon will cost as much as one SLS. The complex launch architecture demands reusability. It's a deal-breaker without it.
generalizations 3y ago
Though, if the tankers are expendable they won't have to reserve fuel for the landing, and the number needed to refuel would probably be at the lower end of that estimate - maybe even 6-10?