Space and Science BS Thread

Huh…
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1568770941160951808?s=46&t=pi0GYeInaZ1c55eqh6uycw

 

Of a single booster.

 

Starship should be done by the time any real additional stations get built up there. Size is irrelevant when the taxi costs 30x what the semi does. Nobody except governments pay that kind of extra cost if they can avoid it.

 

Unless the semi is cheaper than a taxi for some reason.

 

Per kilo but not per launch so it won’t launch without those kilos to fill it. This is totally new territory so who knows how long it will be before crews will begin to ride this particular candle.

 

Ahhh, you might want to double check that.

Scroll down to the “Cost” section:
https://everydayastronaut.com/definitive-guide-to-starship/amp/

 

Never forget
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1568940684995862528?s=46&t=Ue-Y8uemt7dR8fWpMbOMyA

 

Huh! Popeye comes to mind. But remember that’s still just a projection and not a reality. Elon also has to be salesman as well as chief engineer so it’s hard to imagine Starship putting every other rocket class out of business.

 

I was quoting your “Per kilo but not per launch so it won’t launch without those kilos to fill it.” I have nothing on the impact on competition. EM might be a salesman but he and SpX are the only ones who know the true cost of reuse.

What’s the Popeye connection to you. I just think spinach

 

Popeye “Blow me down, hukgukgukgukguk”.
The developement costs of both F9 and crew dragon are a done deal as are the per launch costs. That’s not the case for Starship by a long shot. And it won’t be until at least a few years after it starts flying and they’ve solved issues such as with the tiles, something no one has accomplished in over 4 decades. Rapid reuse is at the heart of those projections which amount to no more than a sales pitch for an unfinished product at this point. It’s a best case scenario only(cost wise). The market will decide if there’s a demand for further Crew Dragons and there’s no reason that with that demand F9, F9H, Crew and Cargo capsules couldn’t be upgraded to speed reuse and lower per launch costs. I certainly couldn’t say for sure but they did leave the door open for further use.

 

https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1569006347097604098?s=46&t=drKecb47N0spC9mlja9v_A

 

Luckily Elon has been very open about the cost of reuse.

A new F9 booster costs 30 million to manufacture, 2nd stage 10illion, fairings 6 million. 46 million cost to spacex. Cost to customer launch a new F9 67 million.

Cost to SpaceX to refurb a f9 booster, fairings, and build a new 2nd stage 15 million. 10 million of which is building a new 2nd stage. Cost to customer 50 million.

Theoretical cost to refurbish starship and booster=0.

And before the fuel cost argument. F9 costs 200,000 to fuel. YouTuber calcs have starship at 500,000-2,000,00. So, going with the 2 million, if they can get all the logistical aspects done for less than 5.5 million, then they're at the 7.5 million cost of a Rocket Lab launch with 300-450X the payload capacity. Even if they charge 20-40 million per launch, falcon 9 could not compete.

 

I’ll agree with every bit of that AFTER they do it, not before no matter how much I wish it to be true. The tile issue is a huge deal and shows no significant signs of improvement over the shuttle versions other than fewer odd shapes and simpler install(in fact it’s much worse in terms of loss of tiles before launch). That alone could add days to weeks to turnaround time even if the missing tiles prove less critical over the SS hull. It’s a wonderful projection but that’s all. They’ve solved issues before but this one is proving illusive. It may take a substantially more expensive layering of high temp composites and ceramics to achieve the longevity they need but ultimately they do need it. Plus it’s a critical path item, maybe not for HLS but definitely for any Starlink or other Leo missions. They may not even do an orbital reentry test without a solution or it’s possible the FAA could withhold the launch license as nobody wants an FHR as big as Skylab plummeting through the atmosphere as a flaming wreck that won’t break up. It’s a big deal. They’re probably already working on a solution, possibly several, but it’s not solved yet.
Actual cost to refurbish Starship and SH = ?
By the time that “?” becomes a real $0 it’s conceivable that the costs associated with another rocket could have dropped substantially.

 

Yes, kinda. The current "surveillance" on Starbase shows them removing the heat tiles on the future Starship components they had already made and layered. They could have a new tile design or retention mechanism coming, or as the current rumor mill is speculating, they may run them as expendable, so no need for heatshielding. The argument there is that they need to get V2 Starlink sats up there to show Tmobile and the FCC they are better. At that point it comes down to how much a Starship stage costs. Even at 10-20 Million, while it wouldn't be ideal, it could still be viable for things like Starlink.

 

Yeah, hard to tell at this remove what has them puckering the most. The problem with intentional deorbit RPD’s is losing that part of the test phase but if it’s planned they can aim it better than China does. Need to finish static fire tests and get the launch license before any of that matters. From the change in patina it seems they may have already tried a different tile composition.
Edit- heck, they may also find out just how necessary the shielding is anyway. They’ve said the SS could likely survive reentry without it so maybe some egghead will come up with an alternative.

 

Blue Origin just had an oops

 

Yeah, no kidding!

 

Good thing it was unmanned even though the abort system worked:
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1569353548399366147?s=46&t=Nti_8jMebgCqJoEyNJBRdA

 

Leaves Bezos with 1 booster