SpaceX's Starship

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You mean this thread in particular, or the Watering Hole in general?

I'm confused as to why you'd want all posts of this nature to be contained in a single thread if that's what you do mean. It seems like separate threads with titles describing their content is easier to navigate around than scrolling through a long thread with lots of different topics.

Maybe I'm still not understanding what you're trying to say.
 
Or maybe you mean this:


I'm confused as to why you'd want all posts of this nature to be contained in a single thread if that's what you do mean.
We have the "What Did You Do Today Rocketwise" thread for things that don't really need threads of their own. Perhaps a thread like that, sort of "What's On Your Mind Today Rocketwise" for questions or thoughts that don't really need threads of their own.

If that's the idea then sure, it's an idea, but I don't personally think it's needed.
 
The red zone is for loading and unloading only. There is no parking in the red zone...
 
SpaceX's record of success suggests that Starship should be fine for its intended purpose. Longer-term objectives such as Mars missions are still unknown at best.
 
It seems like there is a sort of “If you build it, they will come” logic to Starship. Usually spacecraft are built with a specific kind of market need in mind, but it seems like Musk thinks if he can build a ship to boost a hundred people to Mars or a bazillion tons of cargo to the moon, someone will want that, even though there are no current plans to do that kind of thing. It’s kind of speculative.
 
The question is, will there be a market for such a large payload?

Some of it is a "if you build it, they will come" philosophy. No one builds really big satellites because no one can launch them. But if there's a bigger(proven) launcher, then there might be folks who want bigger payloads. In the short-term, I imagine that they could do with Starship what they are already doing with Starlink and other flights. Fill the capacity with lots of other things instead of one big thing. The question there, is would launching five (or ten, or whatever) satellites at once on Starship be cheaper than launching them on some other platform?
 
It seems like there is a sort of “If you build it, they will come” logic to Starship. Usually spacecraft are built with a specific kind of market need in mind, but it seems like Musk thinks if he can build a ship to boost a hundred people to Mars or a bazillion tons of cargo to the moon, someone will want that, even though there are no current plans to do that kind of thing. It’s kind of speculative.

It's funny that we said almost the same thing at almost exactly the same time. "jinx!"
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here - but given the increased baked in reusability of the Starship platform, isn't it supposed to be cheaper per launch than the Falcon 9 configuration even given the vast size difference?
 
It's funny that we said almost the same thing at almost exactly the same time. "jinx!"

That is funny! I’ve had it happen before when I started typing a reply, and by the time I’ve finished and hit Post, someone else beat me to it. But it’s funny we both used the “if you build it” line.
 
What really amazes me is how someone so brilliant and has done all he has with space travel could design such an ugly pickup truck.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here - but given the increased baked in reusability of the Starship platform, isn't it supposed to be cheaper per launch than the Falcon 9 configuration even given the vast size difference?
That's the idea, but until it's actually built, flown, and proven, the actual costs are an unknown. After all, as conceived, the space shuttle was supposed to be "reusable" and cheaper per flight, but never came anywhere close to doing that.
 
That's the idea, but until it's actually built, flown, and proven, the actual costs are an unknown. After all, as conceived, the space shuttle was supposed to be "reusable" and cheaper per flight, but never came anywhere close to doing that.
Absolutely. Definitely unproven at this point. The last few years of SpaceX's track record do speak in their favor though (other than sticking to timelines).
 
So with that kind of payload, we could start sending stuff to mars and have a base ready, then send humans there- this would take what, a falcon heavy launch plus five or six starship launches? Elon may just have a market there
 
Back
Top