4 ms·

And if I’m reading the Orbital Tonnage chart right, then 80-90% of every ton now being launched is a Starlink satellites. Maybe the biggest hurdle for everyone

by blendo 2y ago

And if I’m reading the Orbital Tonnage chart right, then 80-90% of every ton now being launched is a Starlink satellites. Maybe the biggest hurdle for everyone except Starlink (with their standardized design) is spacecraft design and engineering, not cost to orbit? And SpaceX’s Starship will be able to put a payload of 150 tons into LEO. How could we possibly make use of that capacity, other than Elon’s idea of sending millions of people to Mars?

perilunar 2y ago
Well, I think giant habitats at L4/L5, made from metal and glass shipped from the lunar surface or the asteroids (as envisioned by O’Neill), might be a better use of that capacity than cities on Mars, but whatever, as long as we get out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
scotty79 2y ago
> Maybe the biggest hurdle for everyone except Starlink (with their standardized design) is spacecraft design and engineering, not cost to orbit? Maybe the biggest hurdle is that having stuff in orbit has quite limited applications. Starlink is the first semi-reasonable idea that can utilize this much mass in orbit.
nytesky 2y ago
So is StarLink profitable already? I have heard that SpaceX is going public, and the expectation is they are profitable and will be a big IPO. They have been scooping out contracts from UAL with lower pricing for years, and reusable rockets should save money, but if most of tonnage is StarLink, how much that put profitability at risk? Can they keep the cash flow going without starlink?
verzali 2y ago
It's a good question. A lot of people seem to think SpaceX can build it and the demand will appear, but that isn't how things have played out so far. SpaceX has lowered launch costs and they do launch a lot, but they're mostly putting their own satellites up. The demand from everyone else has increased a bit, but not really enough to support the "build it and they will come" theory. The failure of the Falcon Heavy to generate demand speaks volumes about how much demand Starship will see, IMO. Sure we might get an occasional space station, big telescope or Moon landing, but that will add up to a handful of launches. The demand for three launches a day like Musk wants just isn't there, and won't be for a very long time.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  > The failure of the Falcon Heavy to generate demand My understanding is that Falcon 9's thrust has increased to such a degree over it's lifetime that it is capable of taking over most of the missions which would have previously required Falcon Heavy. Recovering Falcon Heavy's central core is also significantly more challenging than a typical Falcon 9 launch due to the increased velocities achieved, increasing cost of the heavy further. And it's fairing is no larger than that of Falcon 9, further reducing it's utility. Starship is another beast entirely, with none of those limitations.

by blendo 2y ago

perilunar 2y ago

Well, I think giant habitats at L4/L5, made from metal and glass shipped from the lunar surface or the asteroids (as envisioned by O’Neill), might be a better use of that capacity than cities on Mars, but whatever, as long as we get out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

scotty79 2y ago

> Maybe the biggest hurdle for everyone except Starlink (with their standardized design) is spacecraft design and engineering, not cost to orbit? Maybe the biggest hurdle is that having stuff in orbit has quite limited applications. Starlink is the first semi-reasonable idea that can utilize this much mass in orbit.

nytesky 2y ago

So is StarLink profitable already? I have heard that SpaceX is going public, and the expectation is they are profitable and will be a big IPO. They have been scooping out contracts from UAL with lower pricing for years, and reusable rockets should save money, but if most of tonnage is StarLink, how much that put profitability at risk? Can they keep the cash flow going without starlink?

verzali 2y ago

It's a good question. A lot of people seem to think SpaceX can build it and the demand will appear, but that isn't how things have played out so far. SpaceX has lowered launch costs and they do launch a lot, but they're mostly putting their own satellites up. The demand from everyone else has increased a bit, but not really enough to support the "build it and they will come" theory. The failure of the Falcon Heavy to generate demand speaks volumes about how much demand Starship will see, IMO. Sure we might get an occasional space station, big telescope or Moon landing, but that will add up to a handful of launches. The demand for three launches a day like Musk wants just isn't there, and won't be for a very long time.

timschmidt 2y ago
> The failure of the Falcon Heavy to generate demand My understanding is that Falcon 9's thrust has increased to such a degree over it's lifetime that it is capable of taking over most of the missions which would have previously required Falcon Heavy. Recovering Falcon Heavy's central core is also significantly more challenging than a typical Falcon 9 launch due to the increased velocities achieved, increasing cost of the heavy further. And it's fairing is no larger than that of Falcon 9, further reducing it's utility. Starship is another beast entirely, with none of those limitations.