Comment on [deleted]

• 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

      • zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yea, Starliner is miserable. Also Northrop Gruman which is a taxpayer-money sinkhole. Meanwhile their argument would be: hurr durr we are creating jubs! 1000 jobs costing the rest of 300 million people a fortune

        source
  • 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

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yeah, it's going to be quite dramatic. Even if the $1 million goal isn't reached, just getting within an order of magnitude of it is still a 40 times saving over Falcon 9 - which is already the dominant launcher for being so cheap and high-volume. It's been kind of fun watching Starship's development and thinking about how for once we're able to see the "oncoming storm" that's going to drastically disrupt the launch market in the years to come. Once Starship's up and running basically everything flying today will be hopelessly obsolete.

        Assuming no unexpected insurmountable obstacles come along. But I just can't think of anything plausible at this point - the only things that I can think of would just involve relatively minor hindrances. If the "chopstick" landing doesn't work out, the design could fall back to landing legs. If the upper stage's heat shield doesn't work then maybe something heavier will be needed, or in the extreme perhaps the upper stage can be expendable until something better gets sorted out. Difficulties with on-orbit refuelling only interfere with beyond-LEO operations, not with shipping satellites to LEO. These can add a few millions of dollars or shave a few tens of tons off of the launch capacity, which still doesn't make the end result less than revolutionary.

        source

        • -> View More Comments