6 ms·

How does that matter? It's doing a thing already done nearly 70 years ago but at its own pace. I bet it will get to the moon cheaper, too, and the Muskonauts w

How does that matter? It's doing a thing already done nearly 70 years ago but at its own pace. I bet it will get to the moon cheaper, too, and the Muskonauts will use less expensive lenses than Hasselblads to take photos.

fluoridation 1y ago
Starship isn't exactly the same as Saturn V. It's bigger, for one. The reason why it matters is that efficiency matters. It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications. And as I understand it the consensus is that Starship (or at least a fully-loaded Starship) will never go to the Moon. Once it's in orbit it takes like twenty refueling launches and space rendezvous to fill it up again so it can make the transfer burn. In other words, it's never happening.
- stetrain 1y ago
  I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS/Orion. Yes the mission profile is more complex, but that complexity can mostly be settled before the astronauts launch on their mission. NASA seems to think it is a viable plan which is why they selected SpaceX to execute that part of the mission.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    Wikipedia: > After a multi-phase design effort, on April 16, 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to develop Starship HLS and deliver it to near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) prior to arrival of the crew for use on the Artemis III mission. The delivery requires that Starship HLS be refueled in Earth orbit before boosting to the NRHO, and this refueling requires a pre-positioned propellant depot in Earth orbit that is filled by multiple (at least 14) tanker flights. I stand by what I said: not happening. I'll believe it when I see it. Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? I can't imagine why someone would approve this plan, other than corruption.
    - DarmokJalad1701 1y ago
      > Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely. They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yesterday.
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        And yet the boosters are not being reused. They're just making brand new engines for every launch. If we're generous they're being dismantled and recycled.
        stetrain 1y ago
        They were talking about Falcon 9, which is absolutely being reused.
        fluoridation 1y ago
        Alright, if we're talking about Falcon 9, I don't know what the cost savings are for a reusable rocket, or if there are any. If someone has that data, feel free to provide it.
        0xffff2 1y ago
        There are a lot of variables, but very roughly, the Falcon 9 has cut launch costs in half compared to its competitors.
        Powdering7082 1y ago
        > As of 2024, SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated between $15 million[186] and $28 million,[185] factoring in workforce expenses, refurbishment, assembly, operations, and facility depreciation.[187] These efficiencies are primarily due to the reuse of first-stage boosters and payload fairings.[188] The second stage, which is not reused, is believed to be the largest expense per launch, with the company's COO stating that each costs $12 million to produce.[189] From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing
- ajmurmann 1y ago
  "It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications." Taking longer at lower cost is a great trade-off for Starship but wasn't for Saturn V. The main driver for Saturn V was the space race against the Soviet Union. Economic interests played a very small role. It was all about being first and compensating for the Sputnik shock.

fluoridation 1y ago

Starship isn't exactly the same as Saturn V. It's bigger, for one. The reason why it matters is that efficiency matters. It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications. And as I understand it the consensus is that Starship (or at least a fully-loaded Starship) will never go to the Moon. Once it's in orbit it takes like twenty refueling launches and space rendezvous to fill it up again so it can make the transfer burn. In other words, it's never happening.

stetrain 1y ago
I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS/Orion. Yes the mission profile is more complex, but that complexity can mostly be settled before the astronauts launch on their mission. NASA seems to think it is a viable plan which is why they selected SpaceX to execute that part of the mission.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  Wikipedia: > After a multi-phase design effort, on April 16, 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to develop Starship HLS and deliver it to near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) prior to arrival of the crew for use on the Artemis III mission. The delivery requires that Starship HLS be refueled in Earth orbit before boosting to the NRHO, and this refueling requires a pre-positioned propellant depot in Earth orbit that is filled by multiple (at least 14) tanker flights. I stand by what I said: not happening. I'll believe it when I see it. Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? I can't imagine why someone would approve this plan, other than corruption.
  - DarmokJalad1701 1y ago
    > Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely. They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yesterday.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      And yet the boosters are not being reused. They're just making brand new engines for every launch. If we're generous they're being dismantled and recycled.
      - stetrain 1y ago
        They were talking about Falcon 9, which is absolutely being reused.
        fluoridation 1y ago
        Alright, if we're talking about Falcon 9, I don't know what the cost savings are for a reusable rocket, or if there are any. If someone has that data, feel free to provide it.
        0xffff2 1y ago
        There are a lot of variables, but very roughly, the Falcon 9 has cut launch costs in half compared to its competitors.
        Powdering7082 1y ago
        > As of 2024, SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated between $15 million[186] and $28 million,[185] factoring in workforce expenses, refurbishment, assembly, operations, and facility depreciation.[187] These efficiencies are primarily due to the reuse of first-stage boosters and payload fairings.[188] The second stage, which is not reused, is believed to be the largest expense per launch, with the company's COO stating that each costs $12 million to produce.[189] From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing
ajmurmann 1y ago
"It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications." Taking longer at lower cost is a great trade-off for Starship but wasn't for Saturn V. The main driver for Saturn V was the space race against the Soviet Union. Economic interests played a very small role. It was all about being first and compensating for the Sputnik shock.