4 ms·

SpaceX has consistently launched ~90% of the mass to orbit for the whole planet Earth over the last several years[1][2]. There's no one else who could more cre

SpaceX has consistently launched ~90% of the mass to orbit for the whole planet Earth over the last several years[1][2]. There's no one else who could more credibly make such a claim. 1: https://officechai.com/stories/spacex-launched-85-of-all-global-satellites-in-q2-2025-88-of-all-weight-lifted-to-orbit/ https://officechai.com/stories/spacex-launched-85-of-all-glo... 2: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90-of-all-orbital-payload-in-2024.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90...

toasty228 5mo ago
They launched a grand total of ~10k starlink satellite, there is a long road between 10k and a million. Musk would be "the most credible" at claiming he'll have 1000 trillion dollar by 2050, it doesn't mean it's credible at all.
- timschmidt 5mo ago
  They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit, and even demonstrated payload deployment. So I'd say 100k looks do-able for them today. 10x that seems aspirational, but not comically so. Folks hate Musk, but that seems to cause them to not see the engineering going on in front of them.
  - Zigurd 5mo ago
    > They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit They seem to have constructed a rocket that consistently gets heavier and more complex and more expensive and farthrt behind schedule and hasn't demonstrated specified payload. IOW it ain't better than falcon heavy.
    - timschmidt 5mo ago
      I checked the publicly released stats over Starship's development, and this is what I found: compared with the initial ~5,000 t / ~73.5 MN concept, the latest V3-class Starship/Super Heavy is trending toward roughly 35%+ more loaded propellant mass and about 40% more maximum liftoff thrust if you use the FAA’s ~103 MN figure. Payload capability has also moved upward from the early 100+ t reusable LEO baseline to SpaceX’s current public claim of up to 150 t fully reusable and 250 t expendable. When I plug those numbers into https://www.aerovia.org/tools/rocket-equation https://www.aerovia.org/tools/rocket-equation I get Delta-Vs in the 28k km/hr range right where I'd expect for orbit. You got a different rocket equation?
      - hackernudes 5mo ago
        Pretty sure they mean that Starship is not working reliably yet
        Zigurd 5mo ago
        Starship has never met claimed specs and capabilities. It is so far behind schedule that it won't meet specs in time to remain relevant. Which is a generous way of saying it never will.
        timschmidt 5mo ago
        It's always a good laugh when I run into some old comment or video talking like this about Falcon. Thunderfoot is a hoot.
  - dzhiurgis 5mo ago
    I'd say Starship is already priced in. That's the step to go from 10k (1%) to 10%. Wonder what will be the next step.
    - timschmidt 5mo ago
      Agreed. They're already stretching starship. And there's long been talk of a wider version yet. Starship is already pretty impressive considering it's just about exactly the size of Sea Dragon.
ben_w 5mo ago
While true, this is insufficient to make the new claim credible. If the proposed satellites only weighed 100kg and remain on orbit for 3 years, to keep a million up requires: (150 metric tons/100kg) = 1500 satellites per Starship launch 1e6/1500 = 666 launches per MTBF (3 years) 666/(3 years) = 222 Starship launches/year This is significantly higher than even the current cadence of Falcons. If the proposed satellites are to be 1 ton, the required launch cadence would be ten times higher.
- timschmidt 5mo ago
  They've been approved for 44 Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and are aiming for 160 total launches in 2026. They've recently purchased a giant tract of land in Louisana to build a third starport. 222/year is looking doable.
  - ben_w 5mo ago
    Approval doesn't mean achievable. At this point, 160 Starship launches in 2026 would be close to every weekday. They already have three launch sites for Falcon and can't do 200. (Also see edit, my first post relied on Apple's autocomplete for maths and it used a short ton, plus point about these numbers corresponding to a mere 100 kg per satellite).
    - timschmidt 5mo ago
      The 160 launches figure includes falcons. Seems like Starship fuels and flight tests faster than Falcon though. And if they manage to reuse second stages, then that eliminates a significant manufacturing bottleneck.
      - ben_w 5mo ago
        If you're counting Falcons, you are making my point for me: even with those, on three launch sites, they still can't get close to the minimum for an extremely small, to the point of being unreasonable, target satellite mass. Further, until they actually do solve upper stage reuse, it is an "if" which can kill the economics of the vehicle itself, let alone reach the eventual potential cost reductions necessary for space based data centres to be worthwhile.

toasty228 5mo ago

They launched a grand total of ~10k starlink satellite, there is a long road between 10k and a million. Musk would be "the most credible" at claiming he'll have 1000 trillion dollar by 2050, it doesn't mean it's credible at all.

timschmidt 5mo ago
They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit, and even demonstrated payload deployment. So I'd say 100k looks do-able for them today. 10x that seems aspirational, but not comically so. Folks hate Musk, but that seems to cause them to not see the engineering going on in front of them.
- Zigurd 5mo ago
  > They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit They seem to have constructed a rocket that consistently gets heavier and more complex and more expensive and farthrt behind schedule and hasn't demonstrated specified payload. IOW it ain't better than falcon heavy.
  - timschmidt 5mo ago
    I checked the publicly released stats over Starship's development, and this is what I found: compared with the initial ~5,000 t / ~73.5 MN concept, the latest V3-class Starship/Super Heavy is trending toward roughly 35%+ more loaded propellant mass and about 40% more maximum liftoff thrust if you use the FAA’s ~103 MN figure. Payload capability has also moved upward from the early 100+ t reusable LEO baseline to SpaceX’s current public claim of up to 150 t fully reusable and 250 t expendable. When I plug those numbers into https://www.aerovia.org/tools/rocket-equation https://www.aerovia.org/tools/rocket-equation I get Delta-Vs in the 28k km/hr range right where I'd expect for orbit. You got a different rocket equation?
    - hackernudes 5mo ago
      Pretty sure they mean that Starship is not working reliably yet
      - Zigurd 5mo ago
        Starship has never met claimed specs and capabilities. It is so far behind schedule that it won't meet specs in time to remain relevant. Which is a generous way of saying it never will.
        timschmidt 5mo ago
        It's always a good laugh when I run into some old comment or video talking like this about Falcon. Thunderfoot is a hoot.
- dzhiurgis 5mo ago
  I'd say Starship is already priced in. That's the step to go from 10k (1%) to 10%. Wonder what will be the next step.
  - timschmidt 5mo ago
    Agreed. They're already stretching starship. And there's long been talk of a wider version yet. Starship is already pretty impressive considering it's just about exactly the size of Sea Dragon.

ben_w 5mo ago

While true, this is insufficient to make the new claim credible. If the proposed satellites only weighed 100kg and remain on orbit for 3 years, to keep a million up requires: (150 metric tons/100kg) = 1500 satellites per Starship launch 1e6/1500 = 666 launches per MTBF (3 years) 666/(3 years) = 222 Starship launches/year This is significantly higher than even the current cadence of Falcons. If the proposed satellites are to be 1 ton, the required launch cadence would be ten times higher.

timschmidt 5mo ago
They've been approved for 44 Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and are aiming for 160 total launches in 2026. They've recently purchased a giant tract of land in Louisana to build a third starport. 222/year is looking doable.
- ben_w 5mo ago
  Approval doesn't mean achievable. At this point, 160 Starship launches in 2026 would be close to every weekday. They already have three launch sites for Falcon and can't do 200. (Also see edit, my first post relied on Apple's autocomplete for maths and it used a short ton, plus point about these numbers corresponding to a mere 100 kg per satellite).
  - timschmidt 5mo ago
    The 160 launches figure includes falcons. Seems like Starship fuels and flight tests faster than Falcon though. And if they manage to reuse second stages, then that eliminates a significant manufacturing bottleneck.
    - ben_w 5mo ago
      If you're counting Falcons, you are making my point for me: even with those, on three launch sites, they still can't get close to the minimum for an extremely small, to the point of being unreasonable, target satellite mass. Further, until they actually do solve upper stage reuse, it is an "if" which can kill the economics of the vehicle itself, let alone reach the eventual potential cost reductions necessary for space based data centres to be worthwhile.