(no title)
inevaexisted | 4 years ago
Starship will make it even cheaper to deliver small payloads too (you'll likely have to wait for enough payload to get lined up to make sense financially), however with the need to continuously deploy starlink satelites, they'll probably fill loads as required with them to fill starship up.
jmyeet|4 years ago
Falcon Heavy is again evidence of this. We're not seeing ride-sharing on FH. We're seeing large (primarily military) payloads that F9 just can't do.
ordu|4 years ago
Not necessarily. I'm not a rocket scientist or economist, but it is possible that FH is less cost-effective per kg on LEO than F9. You need to accelerate three boosters to several thousand km/hour and then to decelerate them to 0 km/hour at ground level. And then to do all the maintaining on those boosters, which takes about a month. Does it allow for 3x payload?
There are other potential issues, like a volume: a payload is not just mass, but a volume too. It needs to fit into fairing. Adding two more boosters doesn't increase available volume.
> I still believe it'll take quite awhile to match the economics of an F9 launch
Musk says that he relies on Starship launches to make it work reliably as expected. And yes, I believe that it will take years. Maybe it will be faster than with F9, but not an order of magnitude faster.
techdragon|4 years ago
These deployers can cost $10000, or even more depending on the specific cubesat size. So when Starship allows small payload aggregators like Spaceflight Inc to recover the PPOD/deployment hardware then it’s going to provide even further cost reductions beyond the simple dollars per unit mass lifted to orbit. The reusable nature of Starship will be a big part of how it changes the economics of space related industries.