Comment on [deleted]

• FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They are nevertheless already profitable, and they haven't even begun using Starship to launch satellites yet.

  source

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    All that sweet gov’t funding doesn’t hurt the bottom line.

    source

    • zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not a musk simp, but Musk corps are actually fullfilling contracts and dont have much cost overruns ( unlike other inefficient corps like Blue Origin, Lockhead Martin, and car manufacturers like Chevy and Ford that feed on gov grants and tax incentives )

      source

      • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Don’t forget boeing. Who is failing at simple ISS docking missions and killing people by dodging modern safety standards with the 737 Max.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There are government users among their customers, yes. Customers are customers. Is this supposed to be a negative?

      source

      • manapropos@lemmy.basedcount.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        A requirement for posting here is being obsessed with raging over Elon Musk. I think everyone got kinda bored of raging over Trump every 5 minutes so they found a new bandwagon

        source
  • zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    i thought why didn’t they just use Falcon Heavy (64 of payload to LEO) but it seems to be too risky and costly (99million$ per launch?, cost in house probably (factual number) 60 million? ). On the other hand, a Falcon 9 (22 tons to LEO, would cost 35 million $ in house (factual) ), but launching and spreading the payload among 3 separate F9’s is less risky and costly than launching aboard the FH, i wonder how much Starship would save on launches

    source

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      They're also limited by the volume of space within the fairing, which is the same for a Falcon 9 and a Falcon 9 Heavy. They already fill the fairing with Starlinks for the regular Falcon 9, so they'd need to design a new fairing to make use of the extra weight capacity of the Heavy.

      The long-term plan for Starship is for a launch to cost on the order of $1 million, as opposed to the current $67 million for a Falcon 9. Starship's payload to LEO will be about 150 tons, compared to Falcon 9's 23 tons. So it's going to be a lot cheaper. Though they'll be launching the somewhat larger Starlink V2 satellites, so the numbers aren't straightforwardly scaled.

      source

      • zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        interesting! so 150/22=6.8 ; 67/1=67 ; 67*6.8=455.6 . i know this is stupid math but Starship is apparently expected to reduce the cost of launch to LEO by a factor of 455! thats really high for expectations to be set. Yea, heavier Starlinks would reduce this factor maybe to 400 or something, but nonetheless, the weight changes shouldn’t affect the launch costs much at this point

        source

        • -> View More Comments