6 ms·

Can you explain what makes Falcon9 / Starship special (or needed) to launch these satellites? China, India, EU, Japan etc. all have the capability to launch sat

Can you explain what makes Falcon9 / Starship special (or needed) to launch these satellites? China, India, EU, Japan etc. all have the capability to launch satellites. So why is a Falcon9 / Starship a particular requirement?

samrus 7mo ago
Has to be the cost. A reusable launch vehicle is such a ridiculously better value proposition that it creates a discrete evolution. Some things just arent feasible to do without them
tartuffe78 7mo ago
Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities.
- palmotea 7mo ago
  > Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities. But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability? Would a smaller constellation be sufficient, especially without competing civilian users?
  - iSnow 7mo ago
    >But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability? No. The German army wants a constellation of initially 40, and later just over 100 satellites. They do not want or need to replicate the massive Starlink numbers.
    - kolinko 7mo ago
      The numbers just don't add up there. With just 40-100 satellites they need to be GEO, and this means crappy transfers, big lags (200-300 absolute minimum, more 500ms), and most importantly - big, power hungry antennas. It's a PR project to calm people down, not a real solution.
mooreds 7mo ago
Cost, maybe? It is one thing to ship up a valuable satellite (which they all can do). But to ship up 1000s of satellites (and keep doing it in perpetuity, because IIRC they don't have a long lifetime[0]) gets expensive. 0: Looks like 5 years. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
- SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago
  Another major detail is that SpaceX is simply burning enormous amounts of money on this. Starlink's revenue is comparable to the ESA's entire 5 billion euro budget, and it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service. (And kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits) The chief problem "stopping" other countries from developing a starlink competitor is that starlink simply doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction. Fiber runs are expensive but not that expensive.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service Starlink was profitable in 2024 [1] and should be materially profitable once V3 goes up. > kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits This hits everyone. And it’s not a serious cost issue. Starlinks are still being deorbited before they need to be due to obselescence. And the propellant depots SpaceX is building for NASA tie in neatly if the chips stablise enough to permit longer-lasting birds. > doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction Infrastructure gets blown up and shut off. Hence the military interest. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-much-does-starlink-make-this-document-offers-a-glimpse https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-much-does-starlink-make-this-...
    - estearum 7mo ago
      From the PCMag article: > For example, although the Starlink subsidiary reported $2.7 billion in revenue for 2024, the same financial statement doesn’t account for the costs of launching and maintaining a fleet of nearly 8,000 Starlink satellites. ???
tekla 7mo ago
None of those countries (well probably except China) have any significant launch capacity to deploy constellations
- bluGill 7mo ago
  They can build it in a few years though. It takes money and can be done overnight but there is nothing about that that costs 10 years. 10 years got to the moon - from a much lower base. 10 years means you are starting with college graduates and building it from no previous experience - or you already have a lot but only are putting minimal budget into improving.
  - kolinko 7mo ago
    Apollo mission was a national mobilisation project that's size happened once/twice in a century. And it still took 10 years. There is no willpower to do that right now in EU. Right now we, in EU, plan to have first reusable vehicles (Ariane Next) in around 10 years - around 2035. And that is for the first vehicles, not for scaling up the production.
    - AngryData 7mo ago
      The Apollo mission was also starting from way behind what you would start with today though. Any aerospace engineer grad today has decades of science and engineering to stand upon.
- thisislife2 7mo ago
  India is already one of the cheapest service providers for such launches - ISRO puts 36 OneWeb satellites in orbit - https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-launches-heaviest-payload-rocket-mission-lvm3-m3-oneweb-india-2-carrying-satellites/article66663592.ece https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-... (They are ofcourse working to create a reusable launch vehicle too).
  - ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
kolinko 7mo ago
Reusability. Even if money were not an issue, other nations need to build a new rocket for every launch, and it's extremely hard/impossible to catch up.
maxglute 7mo ago
It's more tempo, less cost, resuable has faster turn around time, so more launch per unit of time. Long March 5 is ~$3000/kg, or ballpark enough to F9/kg, but disposables can't launch every few days.
AtomicOrbital 7mo ago
spacex has cost advantage due to rocket lands back on launch pad not getting destroyed like all others

samrus 7mo ago

Has to be the cost. A reusable launch vehicle is such a ridiculously better value proposition that it creates a discrete evolution. Some things just arent feasible to do without them

tartuffe78 7mo ago

Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities.

palmotea 7mo ago
> Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities. But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability? Would a smaller constellation be sufficient, especially without competing civilian users?
- iSnow 7mo ago
  >But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability? No. The German army wants a constellation of initially 40, and later just over 100 satellites. They do not want or need to replicate the massive Starlink numbers.
  - kolinko 7mo ago
    The numbers just don't add up there. With just 40-100 satellites they need to be GEO, and this means crappy transfers, big lags (200-300 absolute minimum, more 500ms), and most importantly - big, power hungry antennas. It's a PR project to calm people down, not a real solution.

mooreds 7mo ago

Cost, maybe? It is one thing to ship up a valuable satellite (which they all can do). But to ship up 1000s of satellites (and keep doing it in perpetuity, because IIRC they don't have a long lifetime[0]) gets expensive. 0: Looks like 5 years. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago
Another major detail is that SpaceX is simply burning enormous amounts of money on this. Starlink's revenue is comparable to the ESA's entire 5 billion euro budget, and it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service. (And kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits) The chief problem "stopping" other countries from developing a starlink competitor is that starlink simply doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction. Fiber runs are expensive but not that expensive.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service Starlink was profitable in 2024 [1] and should be materially profitable once V3 goes up. > kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits This hits everyone. And it’s not a serious cost issue. Starlinks are still being deorbited before they need to be due to obselescence. And the propellant depots SpaceX is building for NASA tie in neatly if the chips stablise enough to permit longer-lasting birds. > doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction Infrastructure gets blown up and shut off. Hence the military interest. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-much-does-starlink-make-this-document-offers-a-glimpse https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-much-does-starlink-make-this-...
  - estearum 7mo ago
    From the PCMag article: > For example, although the Starlink subsidiary reported $2.7 billion in revenue for 2024, the same financial statement doesn’t account for the costs of launching and maintaining a fleet of nearly 8,000 Starlink satellites. ???

tekla 7mo ago

None of those countries (well probably except China) have any significant launch capacity to deploy constellations

bluGill 7mo ago
They can build it in a few years though. It takes money and can be done overnight but there is nothing about that that costs 10 years. 10 years got to the moon - from a much lower base. 10 years means you are starting with college graduates and building it from no previous experience - or you already have a lot but only are putting minimal budget into improving.
- kolinko 7mo ago
  Apollo mission was a national mobilisation project that's size happened once/twice in a century. And it still took 10 years. There is no willpower to do that right now in EU. Right now we, in EU, plan to have first reusable vehicles (Ariane Next) in around 10 years - around 2035. And that is for the first vehicles, not for scaling up the production.
  - AngryData 7mo ago
    The Apollo mission was also starting from way behind what you would start with today though. Any aerospace engineer grad today has decades of science and engineering to stand upon.
thisislife2 7mo ago
India is already one of the cheapest service providers for such launches - ISRO puts 36 OneWeb satellites in orbit - https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-launches-heaviest-payload-rocket-mission-lvm3-m3-oneweb-india-2-carrying-satellites/article66663592.ece https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-... (They are ofcourse working to create a reusable launch vehicle too).
- ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago

kolinko 7mo ago

Reusability. Even if money were not an issue, other nations need to build a new rocket for every launch, and it's extremely hard/impossible to catch up.

maxglute 7mo ago

It's more tempo, less cost, resuable has faster turn around time, so more launch per unit of time. Long March 5 is ~$3000/kg, or ballpark enough to F9/kg, but disposables can't launch every few days.

AtomicOrbital 7mo ago

spacex has cost advantage due to rocket lands back on launch pad not getting destroyed like all others