5 ms·

There's simply no way one vehicle will be the best option in every case. If you have a small satellite you need placed somewhere unique, firing up a huge launc

There's simply no way one vehicle will be the best option in every case. If you have a small satellite you need placed somewhere unique, firing up a huge launch vehicle makes no sense.

jiggawatts 2y ago
It does if it's still cheaper than any other rocket.
- timewizard 2y ago
  Your launch price may somehow be cheaper; although, that's incredibly unlikely. Anyways as your insurance underwriter I'm going to jack up the rate on you so high for that launch it will no longer be cheaper.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Starship’s launch price is highly likely to be cheaper if New Glenn’s second stage isn’t reusable.
  - OhMeadhbh 2y ago
    It's also a bit of a straw-man to assume people will only fly on the cheapest lift option. Virgin Orbit lasted as long as it did only because there was one (maybe two) customers who were willing to pay a premium for being guinea pigs for a new technology. Their reasoning was something like "if this pans out, it'll be very cool long term" so they were willing to put their small-sats on a largely untested platform. The same could be said about some of the entrenched players in earth observation. They're willing to pay a bit of a premium for a reasonable amount of time to ensure there's not a monopoly player (which definitely looks like it will be SpaceX.) How much of a premium they're willing to pay and for how long seems like anyone's guess.
- ChuckMcM 2y ago
  This. If, and it’s a big if, starship can be 100% reusable and less than 24 hours turn around, then it will be the space truck NASA envisioned with the shuttle
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Even if it's not 100% reusable it's still likely to be cheaper than New Glenn. New Glenn uses extremely expensive methods of construction. Starship is assembled like a glorified water tank.
    - ChuckMcM 2y ago
      I'm not sure I see it that way, I wonder sometimes how much of the expensive construction can be systematized into something less expensive, and how much of Starship's "cheap" construction will remain as they work harder and harder to get to their reuse and turnaround goals. My intuition is that Starship will get more expensive to make over time and New Glenn less expensive but beyond that I can't say if they would meet in the middle or cross. That said, platform construction costs only dominate when you can't re-use the platform. Anything you can re-use gets amortized over each re-use. That is what had made Falcon 9 so cost effective. Mostly because they get nearly 10 flights per booster.
      - aarmot 2y ago
        > ... Falcon 9 ... nearly 10 flights per booster Just curious: what year is your data from?
      - grecy 2y ago
        > That is what had made Falcon 9 so cost effective. Mostly because they get nearly 10 flights per booster. You’re way out of date. Multiple boosters have flown over 20, a couple are at 23. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage...
        2y ago
- ben-schaaf 2y ago
  I don't see how that makes any sense. Starship is 100t dry; simply the fuel costs of a launch will necessarily be higher than disposable alternatives.
  - NooneAtAll3 2y ago
    fuel is cheap most expensive part are the engines
  - perihelions 2y ago
    Fuel is cheap: it's $900,000 per Starship launch, according to Musk [0]. No disposable rocket comes within even a factor-of-10 of that. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta...
    - ben-schaaf 2y ago
      I was perhaps exaggerating a little with the fuel cost comparison, but we've had rockets like Astra R3 and SS-520 fly for under $5M per launch. Rocket Lab's Electron is ~$7.5M. That's all within a factor of 10.
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  The rocket equation doesn't participate in capitalism -- moving mass to orbit takes delta-v and that takes fuel. If you are going to imagine a hypothetical future where starship has made technological leaps forward sufficient to be the cheapest possible option despite being significantly heavier and larger aerodynamically, you have to imagine someone else could also improve their rocket. A smaller rocket requires less fuel to fly. The US is not the only place flying rockets, and spacex has a lead, but if the industry takes off, there will be other contenders. Once rockets start getting more similar as they all start contending with physics, a smaller rocket will necessarily be cheaper.

There's simply no way one vehicle will be the best option in every case. If you have a small satellite you need placed somewhere unique, firing up a huge launch vehicle makes no sense.

jiggawatts 2y ago

It does if it's still cheaper than any other rocket.

timewizard 2y ago
Your launch price may somehow be cheaper; although, that's incredibly unlikely. Anyways as your insurance underwriter I'm going to jack up the rate on you so high for that launch it will no longer be cheaper.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Starship’s launch price is highly likely to be cheaper if New Glenn’s second stage isn’t reusable.
- OhMeadhbh 2y ago
  It's also a bit of a straw-man to assume people will only fly on the cheapest lift option. Virgin Orbit lasted as long as it did only because there was one (maybe two) customers who were willing to pay a premium for being guinea pigs for a new technology. Their reasoning was something like "if this pans out, it'll be very cool long term" so they were willing to put their small-sats on a largely untested platform. The same could be said about some of the entrenched players in earth observation. They're willing to pay a bit of a premium for a reasonable amount of time to ensure there's not a monopoly player (which definitely looks like it will be SpaceX.) How much of a premium they're willing to pay and for how long seems like anyone's guess.
ChuckMcM 2y ago
This. If, and it’s a big if, starship can be 100% reusable and less than 24 hours turn around, then it will be the space truck NASA envisioned with the shuttle
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Even if it's not 100% reusable it's still likely to be cheaper than New Glenn. New Glenn uses extremely expensive methods of construction. Starship is assembled like a glorified water tank.
  - ChuckMcM 2y ago
    I'm not sure I see it that way, I wonder sometimes how much of the expensive construction can be systematized into something less expensive, and how much of Starship's "cheap" construction will remain as they work harder and harder to get to their reuse and turnaround goals. My intuition is that Starship will get more expensive to make over time and New Glenn less expensive but beyond that I can't say if they would meet in the middle or cross. That said, platform construction costs only dominate when you can't re-use the platform. Anything you can re-use gets amortized over each re-use. That is what had made Falcon 9 so cost effective. Mostly because they get nearly 10 flights per booster.
    - aarmot 2y ago
      > ... Falcon 9 ... nearly 10 flights per booster Just curious: what year is your data from?
    - grecy 2y ago
      > That is what had made Falcon 9 so cost effective. Mostly because they get nearly 10 flights per booster. You’re way out of date. Multiple boosters have flown over 20, a couple are at 23. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage...
      - 2y ago
ben-schaaf 2y ago
I don't see how that makes any sense. Starship is 100t dry; simply the fuel costs of a launch will necessarily be higher than disposable alternatives.
- NooneAtAll3 2y ago
  fuel is cheap most expensive part are the engines
- perihelions 2y ago
  Fuel is cheap: it's $900,000 per Starship launch, according to Musk [0]. No disposable rocket comes within even a factor-of-10 of that. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta...
  - ben-schaaf 2y ago
    I was perhaps exaggerating a little with the fuel cost comparison, but we've had rockets like Astra R3 and SS-520 fly for under $5M per launch. Rocket Lab's Electron is ~$7.5M. That's all within a factor of 10.
ternnoburn 2y ago
The rocket equation doesn't participate in capitalism -- moving mass to orbit takes delta-v and that takes fuel. If you are going to imagine a hypothetical future where starship has made technological leaps forward sufficient to be the cheapest possible option despite being significantly heavier and larger aerodynamically, you have to imagine someone else could also improve their rocket. A smaller rocket requires less fuel to fly. The US is not the only place flying rockets, and spacex has a lead, but if the industry takes off, there will be other contenders. Once rockets start getting more similar as they all start contending with physics, a smaller rocket will necessarily be cheaper.