Starship Flight 3 Test Launch

[ty_ger]

Sure, but what's cheaper, building new boosters, or reducing the payload slightly? I guess SpaceX must think it will be more economical in the long run to have boosters that they can at least control, if not land, after usage.

Yes, they have said that from the start, but also they are still testing that theory with heavier payloads. As far as I know, they haven't yet reached the point that they have proven that reusability is cost-effective. It's a marketing point, for sure. A theory for sure. But not yet proven or decided, as far as I know. And from all indications, they just proved that they will sacrifice reusability when flying heavier payloads. I don't know, but I think that they used too much fuel on the payload and that's why the booster didn't relight properly; it is a very very fine line after all.

The problem with rockets is that the power to weight ratio is terrible at first, and is best at the end. If you choose not to use the last bit of fuel on the payload in order to save it for reusability, you waste the most effective portion of thrust, greatly reduce the effectivity of the whole thing, and increase the cost of the whole thing by a surprisingly massive amount. As far as I know, SpaceX said that they need to fly the same booster with little to no maintenance at least three times in order to break even on cost-effectivity. And as far as I know, they still haven't done that.

I wouldn't assume that it has yet been decided. Once they fly Starship for money for a few years, we'll be more certain of what they decided was the best approach.

SpaceX isn't the first to think about rocket reusability or even successfully test rocket reusability. Other people thought about it, successfully tested it, but then came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense. Even if it hasn't yet made sense to do, SpaceX is pretty well married to it. Their marketing is based on it and their expensive and complex engine and fueling design is based on it. Once they have consistent heavy payload customers, we'll know what they decide. Until then, they have too much momentum and sunk cost to redesign their entire approach. You have to consider that a non-reusable rocket can have a vastly simpler design and therefore much reduced cost; so throwing away a cheaper booster has always proven to be the cheaper and more cost-effective option. Until SpaceX proves otherwise....

 

[A&P211]

Is that the full version of the starship rocket or is there something bigger in the next version.

 

[dgianstefani]

The launch and catch.

 

[Endymio]

As far as I know, SpaceX said that they need to fly the same booster with little to no maintenance at least three times in order to break even on cost-effectivity. And as far as I know, they still haven't done that.

They've reused a Falcon 9 boosted 9 separate times.

Even if it hasn't yet made sense to do, SpaceX is pretty well married to it. Their marketing is based on it...

Err, what? They're not selling potato chips. When a customer needs a satellite launched, they look at cost and reliability only. They don't say to themselves, "hey, it'd be really cool if our satellite was launched by a reusable booster."

Furthermore, the financial calculations change dramatically when you're launching at $250/kilo (Starship target) vs. $12,000/kilo (Delta IV). It's literally impossible to hit a cost target like that without reusability in the mix.

 

[ty_ger]

You said they reused a falcon 9 booster 9 times. I said 'little to no maintenance cost' after 3 times is necessary to break even. As far as I know, their fastest turnaround time is 1 month. It seems they needed maintenance if they needed a month to reuse it. I doubt after 9 times and 9+ months of maintenance, with much more expensive engines, exotic metals, and complexity caused by their design, that their cost was less than 9 cheap metal tubes filled with solid fuel.

So far they have used all of their taxpayer funded moon landing budget on a bunch of piles of wreckage. What did we pay for? Did we get our product?

Due to their ridiculous marketing reusability problem causing a payload problem, it is estimated that starship will need to refuel 20 times while orbiting earth before having enough fuel to continue their mission to the moon.

The design is not sustainable. They aren't saving any money.

Maybe the satelite business is profitable. Maybe they are able to break even on that. Who knows. It is also subsidized and the numbers are hidden.

The vast majority of their 'customers' are themselves. NASA has to use them for national security, and they complain that their price is now more than ever. It's not like they had a choice on who is selling them patato chips.



It is the wrong approach, and we are all paying for it against our choice. It is marketing.

The guy is a conman.

 

[Endymio]

The design is not sustainable. They aren't saving any money....The guy is a conman.

It's clear you're attempting a political statement against Musk personally, rather than having an real understanding of the technology here. SpaceX current charges NASA 1/3 per launch seat what Boeing does, and Boeing can't manage a single launch without 9 delays and 4 critical failures. Meanwhile, SpaceX is launching up to 3 times a day, with the best reliability record in the business.

Prior to SpaceX, the private launch industry was charging $12,000/kilo. Falcon 9 cut that to $3K/kilo and Falcon Heavy $1600/kilo. Starship's target is much lower still: $250/kilo, and, with high reuse, may even hit $100/kilo. And all SpaceX portions of the Artemis III are on time and under budget. Meanwhile, the SpaceX alternative -- Boeing -- had to be bailed out by SpaceX itself, to retrieve our astronauts from the ISS. The only "wrong approach" was in not giving the entire program to SpaceX, rather than just one part of it.

Facts matter. We'll have no disinformation here.

 

[ty_ger]

Who said anything about Boeing? Boeing sucks.

SpaceX, during founding, complained about how Russia tripled its price to gouge Nasa, and acted like it would be a good alternative. Then once SpaceX got funding and spun up, they raised their prices to 8/9 the price of Russia's "gouged" prices. Then, SpaceX warned its employees that they might go out of business.

Seems the reusable design wasn't a magic solution. The reusable design was tested before. Same problem. It's not practical and not economically viable. Without tax payers paying its gouged prices and without 7000 of its owner's company's satelites launched (which tax payers paid part of), SpaceX might have already gone bankrupt.

Your claimed launch prices are delusional.

What is SpaceX going to do when it needs to do 20 orbital refuelings? What's the chances of mission success? What's the price going to be? What's the maintenance cost going to be? How many weeks will it take? And how are they going to do it after they already spent all of our money on failure? We're going to give them more money, huh?


Elon being a conman has nothing to do with politics. He was a comman from the beginning and the only reason he became involved in politics is because he has a bunch of money and it is his life preserver to save him from his lies. The two of them didn't even like eachother or agree with eachother; but they made a partnership out of mutual necessity. Without the recent hope of government protection, you saw where his lies were taking his stock. People were finally catching on to his lies; but now the meme investors are back in full force. Hopefully he some day pays for his lies; but I fear that will hurt a lot of investors, so I am torn. Life isn't fair, and the people enslave themself. I just wish I had a say in the matter; this island is hard to leave. The citizens are choosing to lower regulation so that they can be hurt more and give more money to the companies who hurt them and lie straight to their face.

 

[the54thvoid]

Stick to the topic. Leave out the cult of personality.

 

[Aken Bosch]

@ty_ger
"Your claimed launch prices are delusional." Based on what exactly?
On SLS?
On New Glenn?

I'm curious, taking into account that I'm not living there.

 

[ty_ger]

They are subsidized, so who knows what their actual launch costs are. What I meant is the supposed starship prices: absolutely dilusional. Or there is some heavy accounting magic going on with moving money around and creative use of the taxpayer slush fund.
The thing is heavy and can barely move out of its own way when empty. As stated, it is estimated that it will need to be refueled 20 times in orbit just to have enough fuel to go to the moon. How do you expect a good price per kg? The claimed price is absolutely dilusional from the king of dilusional.
I'll be surprised if the thing ever completes a moon mission. Mars? Never. He'll keep scraping at investor and tax payer funding until he dies of an overdose.

 

[Endymio]

Who said anything about Boeing? Boeing sucks.

You brought up Boeing yourself when you broached the "moon landing project". Boeing is SpaceX's only competitor for heavy lift for Artemis. Everyone else on the planet -- even startups with no experience and nothing but a design on paper -- were invited to bid. None thought they could provide service even as cheaply as Boeing, which itself was more than double the price of SpaceX.

Who would YOU propose for cheaper, more reliable heavy lift to orbit? You already admitted the Russians are more expensive than SpaceX. Delta IV was much more expensive the Russians even, and it's out of service now anyway. Vulcan Caesar? Much pricier than SpaceX, and barely qualifies as a heavy lift service. Ariane 6? 13 years in development, and still has yet to fly.

The reusable design was tested before. Same problem. It's not practical and not economically viable.

Then why is SpaceX's reusable design so much cheaper than all the non-reusable ones?

What is SpaceX going to do when it needs to do 20 orbital refuelings?

You're confused on the mechanics. Without refueling, Starship can place 100 tons in LEO -- the same as the Saturn V, but with full reusability. And orders of magnitude cheaper, as well. It requires refueling to do what we've never done before: lightly deposit 100 tons -- and up to 100 people -- on the lunar surface in a single mission. Apollo carried an extremely lightweight 2 man spacecraft (4 tons) and even still could only function by discarding reuse entirely, throwing away $10B of hardware with every launch. It's utterly impossible to support a moon base with such an economic model. And even the non-reusable Saturn V would have required a dozen plus refuelings to put 100T on the moon.

And the "20 orbital fuelings" figure is nonsense. That's a worst-case scenario based on the first LEO test launch. The upgraded Starship will have a significantly higher payload.

They are subsidized, so who knows what their actual launch costs are.

Let's correct this misinformation. SpaceX is not subsidized. A "subsidy" is a support payment for doing nothing. SpaceX is providing a service for a fee -- and at a price lower than anyone else in the world.

 

[ty_ger]

I think your numbers are nonsense.

"Then why is SpaceX's reusable design so much cheaper than all the non-reusable ones?" : I don't think it is, before you play with the numbers. Oh, you need a door that is 1 foot wider? That's an extra $100 million in revenue. We said our launch price was going to be X? Oh, no, we meant 2.6X. Want to go to the moon? That's $15.3 billion, but we'll use it all for our infrastructure, not include it in our launch costs, use it all up, and not go to the moon. They charge more for some missions than others. They gouge when they can, but claim cheap prices when it is convenient. Without the $15.3 billion in their back pocket that quietly dwindled to nothing, their average launch price would be much different.

Your definition of a subsidy is nonsense as well. There are some real revelations of state of mind in your definition.

 

[Endymio]

I think your numbers are nonsense.

SpaceX's HLS bid to NASA was $2.9B. That's what we're paying them. Dynetics bid was $5.27B, and Blue Origin was $10.2B. And NASA itself noted it wasn't just the cost: both Dynetics and Blue Origin had multiple design flaws in their bids.

As for HLS (heavy lift) rockets:

Per launch cost:
SLS: $4.1 billion
Delta IV Heavy: $350 million
Ariane 5: $178 million
Falcon Heavy: $90 million
Starship: $10 million

Despite Starship being so much cheaper than all the others, it has by far the largest payload of all.

How Much Does It Cost to Launch a Rocket? [By Type & Size]

Curious about the price of launching a rocket into space? Dive into the costs associated with different rocket types, and sizes.

spaceimpulse.com

Your definition of a subsidy is nonsense as well.

By your definition, if a government worker buys a ham sandwich from a gas station, he's subsidizing the entire fast food industry. Purchasing goods or services at the lowest possible price isn't "a subsidy". Facts matter.

 

[ty_ger]

Look up the definition of subsidy.






"
Falcon Heavy: $90 million [to $150 million that you left out from your source (plus subsidies)]
Starship: $10 million
"

Are you saying that with a straight face? That monstrosity that can barely get out of its own way when empty is going to haul 100 tons and cost 10 times cheaper? You believe that? Ever notice that every lie he makes is 'next year' and 'ten times whatever'? ... oh, and 'what you are seeing is an actual demonstration of a working product' (solar tiles, battery swaps, tesla bots, early FSD, etcetera).


Be careful about what you believe. Approach a topic from a critical angle and consider the facts and limitations. There is so much hype and so little truth in our modern world.

 

[Endymio]

Look up the definition of subsidy.

Subsidy. (n) A gift or grant of money by a government to a private person or company.

Purchasing goods or services is not a subsidy ... especially when that purchase is made at the lowest possible market cost.

Falcon Heavy: $90 million [to $150 million that you left out from your source (plus subsidies)]
Starship: $10 million

There are no "subsidies" for Falcon Heavy. And even at the highest possible launch cost, it's much cheaper per kilo than any of its competitors. You were proven wrong. Stop beating a dead horse.

Are you saying that with a straight face? That monstrosity that can barely get out of its own way when empty is going to haul 100 tons and cost 10 times cheaper?

People far more knowledgeable than you believe as much. It may not be "10 times cheaper", but it'll certainly be less expensive than Falcon 9 Heavy, which is itself the cheapest in the industry -- despite both Falcon and Starship being fully reusable. So much for "reusable rockets aren't viable".

 

[the54thvoid]

@Endymio @ty_ger

Rock, I'd like you to meet hard place.

Your constant back and forth isn't going anywhere, so please leave it there. Unless either of you has company/government documents that prove your points. Even then - barring an accountant wading in, it'd still be speculative.

Move on please.

 

[ty_ger]

I am not trying to drive this conversation onward, but regarding "subsidy"

Noun
Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.

And as a matter of fact, $15.3 billion went into the infrastrusture which wouldn't be there without it. You can keep your prices lower if you don't have to cover all of your actual costs.

Edit: I'll leave it at this: you can love the guy and the progress of the company, but respect why others don't. We are stuck in the same hell you thrive in. There is no reason to argue facts, because one is based on opinion, intuition, and the few bits of fact available, while the other is based on hype, lack of transparency, and the words of a man whose own legal department argued in court should never be trusted as speaking anything more than wishful thinking (or 'no reasonable investor can believe what he says').

Edit, Edit: I see below that you claim these aren't subsidies because they are payments for services rendered. That isn't the case. For some, sure, but for many, these are grants for developement of the business, not for a specific service rendered. If it were for services rendered, how have they already been paid and already used all the money, but they haven't yet gone to the moon? If they take NASA to the moon, you better believe that they will charge NASA another $billion just for that '$10million' mission alone; after all, it won't be cheap to launch 20 refueling rockets which will need a total of 2 years maintenance afterward. There's no way SpaceX is going to say 'yo, NASA, you already paid for this ride. This ride is on us'.
It's never going to happen; the guy will die of an overdose before we ever get what we paid for. Their design is too needlessly complex and dumb, doesn't achieve the goal marketed, will just create more expense and risk for nothing, and will take another decade of testing before we are even ready to try. Bleed the tax payers. I wish we had a choice.

 

[Vayra86]

There are tangible results here that we can rely on, and you can be sure there is data that is being relied on to price things properly based on what we know. What else can you do? Money matters. In the end SpaceX does deliver, Tesla does deliver. Even if the eventual price turns out higher - actual stuff was done with it. These projects have no real qualities that belong to being conned. Those ships and those people are actually going to space and coming back safe and sound.

Is the CEO perfect? Hell no. But let's give credit where its due, and appreciate the facts that exist, and not how we feel about it. I don't think that has any scientific value here

About the cost aspect, I think Tesla has also proven that simplification allows for immense steps forward, its not a stretch to expect something similar from a grounds-up redesign of space travel, the last time we figured that out is over 50 years ago. SpaceX is clearly spacetravel's AMD Zen moment. It defines the future, but it doesn't have to be the ultimate solution yet.

 

[kapone32]

I'm still boggled by the incredible work of NASA and the slingshot trajectories used on the planetary missions. Space-X will need the same approach for Mars when it finally starts sending test probes. And I guess that's what some people don't realise. There are windows of celestial alignment that have to be factored in. How many 'dummy' runs without humans will need to be done before any humans can go? Private enterprise can sign a waiver, but any govt body would need some reassurance people weren't being used as guinea pigs.

Read Robert Hienlien. He was a Sci fi writer in the 50s and 60s. That was the first place I read about what you are talking about with the slingshot effect. It might have been Farmer in the Sky or Podykane of Mars.

 

[Endymio]

@Endymio @ty_ger
Unless either of you has company/government documents that prove your points:

I'll leave it at this, straight from NASA itself:

"NASA is getting ready to send astronauts to explore more of the Moon as part of the Artemis program, and the agency has selected SpaceX ... The firm-fixed price, milestone-based contract total award value is $2.89 billion...."

A contract to deliver services is not a "gift or grant" and doesn't in any way qualify as a subsidy.

That contract covered the initial moon lander. Afterwards, NASA purchased a second moon landing, for an even better price:

"NASA has awarded a contract modification to SpaceX...With this addition, SpaceX will provide a second crewed landing demonstration mission in 2027...The contract modification has a value of about $1.15 billion....."

https://www3.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf

SAM.gov

sam.gov

NextSTEP-2 H: Human Landing System - NASA

Apr. 8, 2019 – First synopsis Issued April 26, 2019 – Updated synopsis Issued July 19, 2019 – Draft BAA issued | AnnouncementJuly

www.nasa.gov

NASA Awards SpaceX Second Contract Option for Artemis Moon Landing - NASA

Editor’s note: This release was updated Tuesday, Nov. 15, to include the contract modification value.

www.nasa.gov

 

[the54thvoid]

No surprise. You both replied. I couldn't action one without the other. Now you can both, definitely, stop. Awesome.