5 ms·

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send to space so SpaceX and others are trying to come up with ideas to induce demand. My understanding is that Starlink mostly grew out of the same need to justify scaling up rocket production.

dzhiurgis 5mo ago
> potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. IDK I think plenty of people will want to go to space or even cut 24 hour flights across the world to 90 minutes. As for experience - it's going to be pricy, but look how many multi-million dollar yachts are out there, parked, doing nothing. People do have money for such experiences.
- scared_together 5mo ago
  I think for travel around Earth, supersonic passenger aircraft are more feasible than rockets. Even if we consider sonic booms, a lot of routes where rockets would be desirable are across uninhabited oceans.
  - dzhiurgis 5mo ago
    Somewhat agree. Boom has demonstrated something, but Starship looks more ready than them. Plus it's going to be vastly more faster and more impressive. Sonic boom can't be the limiting factor forever.
    - dingaling 5mo ago
      > Boom has demonstrated something They didn't even demonstrate performance on par with their 1950s era T-38 chase plane, and now they've retired their 'demonstrator' and pivoted into data centre power turbines.
dopa42365 5mo ago
Before LEO internet constellations, even the leading nations had just ~20-25 launches per year each, and a good chunk of those were for ISS services. Other than the occasional GNSS, weather, scientific, broadcast and surveillance satellite, there's not all that much worth sending into space.
- fragmede 5mo ago
  I, and I'm not alone, would pay a giant pile of money to go into space for a holiday.
  - illiac786 5mo ago
    That ought to be the most CO2 heavy holiday I can think of. I wish it could be made illegal, but I am certain there will always be one country allowing it.
  - verzali 5mo ago
    And yet space tourism ventures consistently struggle to be viable. Even SpaceX barely bothers with that market.
    - laughing_man 5mo ago
      People have been pointing to space tourism for decades, but I've never thought it viable. You quickly run out of people with enough money to pay what it costs to run the service. Beyond that, it's got to be the lousiest way to spend a couple days. Weightlessness is really uncomfortable -- you're most likely going to be motion sick for a day or two. But beyond that your body requires gravity for proper distribution of fluids. The reason astronauts look so puffy in photographs is their faces are swelling from excess fluid.
      - fragmede 5mo ago
        Having a computer in your pocket that's connected to a world wide web of other devices wasn't viable until the technology too support it was there. If it cost the same as a family vacation to another continent, I'm sure there's no shortage of people that want to experience the weightlessness of space. Think of having drinks (alcohol or not) in space. A simple thing as that would be such an experience. It wouldn't be for everybody, just like cruise ships aren't for everybody, yet that industry manages to stay afloat.
elbasti 5mo ago
This is correct. The only problem that "data centers in space" solves is the problem of trying to scale a rocket company where the potential demand for rocket launches is simply not that big.
jjmarr 5mo ago
I don't know why space marines aren't a thing yet. The USA could put a rapid reaction force of Tier 1 Special Forces onto a space station and deploy them through atmospheric re-entry anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes. I can only assume "too easy to track" is part of the logic. Ditto for kinetic strikes. That was super hyped up.
- illiac786 5mo ago
  The cost would be insane. And it wouldn’t be near 30min, you’d need lots of teams to reach this, driving the cost further up. Need to rotate them on a regular basis. And soldier without gravity for months at a time are definitely not fit for combat.
  - jjmarr 5mo ago
    > The cost would be insane. Yeah, that's why it'd be a good way for SpaceX to make money.
    - laughing_man 5mo ago
      But it doesn't make sense for the marines. For the same money you could spin up a bunch more QRFs and scatter them over the globe.
      - jjmarr 5mo ago
        Technically it'd make sense for Space Force, which is trying to get money for their own SOCOM unit.[1] The Marines might not be happy since they'd prefer the budget for themselves. > For the same money you could spin up a bunch more QRFs and scatter them over the globe. The argument Space Force could make is this would allow for higher talent density than dispersed QRFs. The same unit could also attack satellites or space stations. [1] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/space-force-special-operations-command-congress-has-questions-too/410245/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/space-force-specia...
- patagurbon 5mo ago

dzhiurgis 5mo ago

> potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. IDK I think plenty of people will want to go to space or even cut 24 hour flights across the world to 90 minutes. As for experience - it's going to be pricy, but look how many multi-million dollar yachts are out there, parked, doing nothing. People do have money for such experiences.

scared_together 5mo ago
I think for travel around Earth, supersonic passenger aircraft are more feasible than rockets. Even if we consider sonic booms, a lot of routes where rockets would be desirable are across uninhabited oceans.
- dzhiurgis 5mo ago
  Somewhat agree. Boom has demonstrated something, but Starship looks more ready than them. Plus it's going to be vastly more faster and more impressive. Sonic boom can't be the limiting factor forever.
  - dingaling 5mo ago
    > Boom has demonstrated something They didn't even demonstrate performance on par with their 1950s era T-38 chase plane, and now they've retired their 'demonstrator' and pivoted into data centre power turbines.

dopa42365 5mo ago

Before LEO internet constellations, even the leading nations had just ~20-25 launches per year each, and a good chunk of those were for ISS services. Other than the occasional GNSS, weather, scientific, broadcast and surveillance satellite, there's not all that much worth sending into space.

fragmede 5mo ago
I, and I'm not alone, would pay a giant pile of money to go into space for a holiday.
- illiac786 5mo ago
  That ought to be the most CO2 heavy holiday I can think of. I wish it could be made illegal, but I am certain there will always be one country allowing it.
- verzali 5mo ago
  And yet space tourism ventures consistently struggle to be viable. Even SpaceX barely bothers with that market.
  - laughing_man 5mo ago
    People have been pointing to space tourism for decades, but I've never thought it viable. You quickly run out of people with enough money to pay what it costs to run the service. Beyond that, it's got to be the lousiest way to spend a couple days. Weightlessness is really uncomfortable -- you're most likely going to be motion sick for a day or two. But beyond that your body requires gravity for proper distribution of fluids. The reason astronauts look so puffy in photographs is their faces are swelling from excess fluid.
    - fragmede 5mo ago
      Having a computer in your pocket that's connected to a world wide web of other devices wasn't viable until the technology too support it was there. If it cost the same as a family vacation to another continent, I'm sure there's no shortage of people that want to experience the weightlessness of space. Think of having drinks (alcohol or not) in space. A simple thing as that would be such an experience. It wouldn't be for everybody, just like cruise ships aren't for everybody, yet that industry manages to stay afloat.

elbasti 5mo ago

This is correct. The only problem that "data centers in space" solves is the problem of trying to scale a rocket company where the potential demand for rocket launches is simply not that big.

jjmarr 5mo ago

I don't know why space marines aren't a thing yet. The USA could put a rapid reaction force of Tier 1 Special Forces onto a space station and deploy them through atmospheric re-entry anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes. I can only assume "too easy to track" is part of the logic. Ditto for kinetic strikes. That was super hyped up.

illiac786 5mo ago
The cost would be insane. And it wouldn’t be near 30min, you’d need lots of teams to reach this, driving the cost further up. Need to rotate them on a regular basis. And soldier without gravity for months at a time are definitely not fit for combat.
- jjmarr 5mo ago
  > The cost would be insane. Yeah, that's why it'd be a good way for SpaceX to make money.
  - laughing_man 5mo ago
    But it doesn't make sense for the marines. For the same money you could spin up a bunch more QRFs and scatter them over the globe.
    - jjmarr 5mo ago
      Technically it'd make sense for Space Force, which is trying to get money for their own SOCOM unit.[1] The Marines might not be happy since they'd prefer the budget for themselves. > For the same money you could spin up a bunch more QRFs and scatter them over the globe. The argument Space Force could make is this would allow for higher talent density than dispersed QRFs. The same unit could also attack satellites or space stations. [1] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/space-force-special-operations-command-congress-has-questions-too/410245/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/space-force-specia...
patagurbon 5mo ago