5 ms·

I imagine SpaceX is on for some pretty juicy government contracts now!

by jimnotgym 2y ago

mjamesaustin 2y ago
Yes, considering they're achieving far better results at much lower cost than the SLS and other launch providers.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  That remains to be seen. It ain't finished yet!
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    They're already the best and cheapest launch provider with Falcon 9.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class.
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        This is true. SLS is around $ 37000 / kg to Orbit Falcon 9 is around $ 2700 / kg to Orbit So in excess of an order of magnitude difference. Starship build cost is currently estimated at $90 million [1]. Let's call it $100 million to make the calculations simple. So even if they can't reuse anything and the payload is at the low-end of what they expect, so 100t from the 100-150t range, that would be $1 million per ton or $1000 per kilo. So 1/37th of SLS even when fully expendable. With full reuse, the cost should come down to around $10/kg. [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-estimate-of-starship-costs-japan-launches-spy-satellite/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-es...
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Nobody is arguing Falcon 9 isn't a good deal but you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9, the comparison would be Starship to Falcon 9, of which, Starship ain't finished! That's all I'm saying.
        moralestapia 2y ago
        You wrote: >Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class. Not: >Starship and Falcon 9 are not in the same class.
        mpweiher 2y ago
        > you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9 I just did, so you clearly can. And it is also meaningful. In theory, a heavier vehicle should have lower cost to orbit, not higher, all else being equal, as some costs are constant overhead. And this theory turns out to be true when you have a comparable vehicle, the Falcon Heavy: Falcon Heavy: $ 2,100 / kg to LEO (fully expended) SLS: $ 37,000 / kg to LEO Payload capacity is 68t and 70t respectively in this configuration, so pretty much identical. If you only need 50t to LEO, price for the Falcon Heavy drops to $1,800 / kg as they can then reuse various components. So SLS is already completely outclassed as things stand right now. Then comes Starship. A fully expendable Starship, which they have pretty much demonstrated already, would be a further incremental improvement. Slightly lower cost, double the payload of Falcon Heavy, so around $1000/kg. Add even partial reuse, and you're probably in the $800/kg range. And then you have full reuse, which they look to be close to demonstrating, which is a complete game changer. In the $10 / kg cost range. 3700x cheaper than SLS. That's two decades of Moore's Law kind of improvement. Absolutely crazy. Human with food, water and air for a couple of days would be what, $5000?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        > Then comes Starship That's my whole damn point. It ain't here yet. You're comparing SLS to a fantasy rocket. Starship needs to materialize before we compare IMO. I personally don't think Starship will ever deliver humans to the moon (but I wouldn't mind being wrong).
      - panick21_ 2y ago
        Kind of doesn't matter. There is no mission Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy couldn't do. The moon architecture has been designed so that it requires SLS, not the other way around. No rational planner would ever even consider SLS if they had a choice. You would much rather launch distributed into LEO, assemble and go from there. The 2 billion $ a year could be spent on important things for the transition and the lander.
starik36 2y ago
They already have lion's share of NASA and Space Force govt contracts. Cargo runs to ISS, bringing astronauts to and from ISS, NROL missions, scientific missions (like Europa Clipper recently).
- jimnotgym 2y ago
  Sure they do, but the government could choose to spend more or less on space, couldn't they?
rdtsc 2y ago
Shouldn't they be? Boeing, Lockheed and Blue Origin are welcome to compete and do just as well.
indoordin0saur 2y ago
You mean after the Boeing debacle?
- sebazzz 2y ago
  I think they meant buying Trump. As far as I understand the super heavy launch market doesn’t yet exist. Even if in payload mass capacity Starship can do it, we still need to see one with a payload door rather than a pez-satellite dispenser.
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    An obvious use case is just ridesharing. Multiple companies want to launch midsize satellites? Rather than paying for multiple Falcon 9 launches group up a few into one Starship launch and save a lot of money.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > super heavy launch market doesn’t yet exist. Ye of little imagination! Just imagine how differently you can do space exploration when launch costs are not in the multi billion (SLS) or hundred million (Falcon Heavy) dollar range, but more like a million dollars. You can send much bigger, heavier and cheaply constructed probes. And you can give them lots and lots more fuel, especially if you refuel them in-orbit, so less travel time. Have a heavily shielded/armored Starship that launches small nuclear propulsion units into orbit that are then connected to the probes. When launching a super heavy ($1 million for 100-150t to LEO) costs a small fraction of what a Falcon 9 launch costs today ($90 million), you can take over that entire segment as well, even without ride sharing. Or consider CubeSats. They currently weigh around 2kg and ride share with a primary launch. At $1 million per launch and 100 tons, you could launch 1000 CubeSats at 100 kg each, for $1000 per CubeSat. Though I am not sure if that would work out logistically. Maybe 200 CubeSats at 500 kg each would be easier, $5000 a pop. Still very doable.

I imagine SpaceX is on for some pretty juicy government contracts now!

mjamesaustin 2y ago

Yes, considering they're achieving far better results at much lower cost than the SLS and other launch providers.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
That remains to be seen. It ain't finished yet!
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  They're already the best and cheapest launch provider with Falcon 9.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      This is true. SLS is around $ 37000 / kg to Orbit Falcon 9 is around $ 2700 / kg to Orbit So in excess of an order of magnitude difference. Starship build cost is currently estimated at $90 million [1]. Let's call it $100 million to make the calculations simple. So even if they can't reuse anything and the payload is at the low-end of what they expect, so 100t from the 100-150t range, that would be $1 million per ton or $1000 per kilo. So 1/37th of SLS even when fully expendable. With full reuse, the cost should come down to around $10/kg. [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-estimate-of-starship-costs-japan-launches-spy-satellite/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-es...
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Nobody is arguing Falcon 9 isn't a good deal but you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9, the comparison would be Starship to Falcon 9, of which, Starship ain't finished! That's all I'm saying.
        moralestapia 2y ago
        You wrote: >Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class. Not: >Starship and Falcon 9 are not in the same class.
        mpweiher 2y ago
        > you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9 I just did, so you clearly can. And it is also meaningful. In theory, a heavier vehicle should have lower cost to orbit, not higher, all else being equal, as some costs are constant overhead. And this theory turns out to be true when you have a comparable vehicle, the Falcon Heavy: Falcon Heavy: $ 2,100 / kg to LEO (fully expended) SLS: $ 37,000 / kg to LEO Payload capacity is 68t and 70t respectively in this configuration, so pretty much identical. If you only need 50t to LEO, price for the Falcon Heavy drops to $1,800 / kg as they can then reuse various components. So SLS is already completely outclassed as things stand right now. Then comes Starship. A fully expendable Starship, which they have pretty much demonstrated already, would be a further incremental improvement. Slightly lower cost, double the payload of Falcon Heavy, so around $1000/kg. Add even partial reuse, and you're probably in the $800/kg range. And then you have full reuse, which they look to be close to demonstrating, which is a complete game changer. In the $10 / kg cost range. 3700x cheaper than SLS. That's two decades of Moore's Law kind of improvement. Absolutely crazy. Human with food, water and air for a couple of days would be what, $5000?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        > Then comes Starship That's my whole damn point. It ain't here yet. You're comparing SLS to a fantasy rocket. Starship needs to materialize before we compare IMO. I personally don't think Starship will ever deliver humans to the moon (but I wouldn't mind being wrong).
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      Kind of doesn't matter. There is no mission Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy couldn't do. The moon architecture has been designed so that it requires SLS, not the other way around. No rational planner would ever even consider SLS if they had a choice. You would much rather launch distributed into LEO, assemble and go from there. The 2 billion $ a year could be spent on important things for the transition and the lander.

starik36 2y ago

They already have lion's share of NASA and Space Force govt contracts. Cargo runs to ISS, bringing astronauts to and from ISS, NROL missions, scientific missions (like Europa Clipper recently).

jimnotgym 2y ago
Sure they do, but the government could choose to spend more or less on space, couldn't they?

rdtsc 2y ago

Shouldn't they be? Boeing, Lockheed and Blue Origin are welcome to compete and do just as well.

indoordin0saur 2y ago

You mean after the Boeing debacle?

sebazzz 2y ago
I think they meant buying Trump. As far as I understand the super heavy launch market doesn’t yet exist. Even if in payload mass capacity Starship can do it, we still need to see one with a payload door rather than a pez-satellite dispenser.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  An obvious use case is just ridesharing. Multiple companies want to launch midsize satellites? Rather than paying for multiple Falcon 9 launches group up a few into one Starship launch and save a lot of money.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > super heavy launch market doesn’t yet exist. Ye of little imagination! Just imagine how differently you can do space exploration when launch costs are not in the multi billion (SLS) or hundred million (Falcon Heavy) dollar range, but more like a million dollars. You can send much bigger, heavier and cheaply constructed probes. And you can give them lots and lots more fuel, especially if you refuel them in-orbit, so less travel time. Have a heavily shielded/armored Starship that launches small nuclear propulsion units into orbit that are then connected to the probes. When launching a super heavy ($1 million for 100-150t to LEO) costs a small fraction of what a Falcon 9 launch costs today ($90 million), you can take over that entire segment as well, even without ride sharing. Or consider CubeSats. They currently weigh around 2kg and ride share with a primary launch. At $1 million per launch and 100 tons, you could launch 1000 CubeSats at 100 kg each, for $1000 per CubeSat. Though I am not sure if that would work out logistically. Maybe 200 CubeSats at 500 kg each would be easier, $5000 a pop. Still very doable.