SpaceX (Vol. 2)

[Talksteer]

Buzz84 said:

Of course you can do exactly that.

They are contracted by NASA to provide specific services/projects in return for that money. Eg ISS cargo resupply, ISS crew transfers and the human lander project.

That money will be a fraction of their overall operating budget and needed to carry out operations to fulfil those contracts. They would not be doing these things if they were not contracted to do.

They will also get money from commercial satellite launches that will directly tie with what it costs to launch that satellite. There will be profit made from these and there is likely some profit generated from the NASA contracts.

All of those things are relatively small compared to Starlink revenues, both actual revenues today and near term forecast revenues as it grows. Space based data centres would be an order of magnitude higher in terms of revenue.

SpaceX revenue in 2020 was about $2-3bn, it's now around $18bn.

[98elise]

p1stonhead said:

welshjon81 said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

Simpo Two said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

WH16 said:

Hmm, doing the hardest thing mankind has ever done is taking a little longer than predicted. I can live with that.

The hardest thing ever, that he will never achieve, he knows he'll never achieve, and no one is asking for anyway. Tremendous.

He got further than you did though...

As ridiculous as your statement is, it's not even true . Starship has been in development for 8 years and has yet to deliver a payload or reach orbit. So same has my multiplanetary effort then.

Dude, SpaceX are building the most powerful, most complex and most ambitious machine (and infrastructure to suit) that man has ever seen. You don't work in manufacturing/production - do you?

It s just a rocket. That hasn t done anything yet.

It s not even remotely close to the most ambitious machine ever built.

It s at this time almost certainly this

https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-s...

Catching a massive booster isn't anything? Personally I thought it was an amazing feat.

[Evanivitch]

I know SpaceX adjacent, but Orbex gone into administration.

Without complete UK gov/MOD backing for a sovereign launch capability, there's zero chance a small and medium organisation will grow to rival SpaceX.

And arguably, if we work with Europe and make better use of Guyana, then we don't need to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyz224q9v5o

[JoshSm]

98elise said:

Catching a massive booster isn't anything? Personally I thought it was an amazing feat.

The thing with rocket science is it really isn't that complicated.

It's sort of impressive looking but if you run through the list of what's needed to make it actually work it's not that long.

[p1stonhead]

98elise said:

p1stonhead said:

welshjon81 said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

Simpo Two said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

WH16 said:

Hmm, doing the hardest thing mankind has ever done is taking a little longer than predicted. I can live with that.

The hardest thing ever, that he will never achieve, he knows he'll never achieve, and no one is asking for anyway. Tremendous.

He got further than you did though...

As ridiculous as your statement is, it's not even true . Starship has been in development for 8 years and has yet to deliver a payload or reach orbit. So same has my multiplanetary effort then.

Dude, SpaceX are building the most powerful, most complex and most ambitious machine (and infrastructure to suit) that man has ever seen. You don't work in manufacturing/production - do you?

It s just a rocket. That hasn t done anything yet.

It s not even remotely close to the most ambitious machine ever built.

It s at this time almost certainly this

https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-s...

Catching a massive booster isn't anything? Personally I thought it was an amazing feat.

It's very impressive but was more so because it hadn't been done before. But compared to some machines we have made, it's nothing.

As I mentioned previously, what's going on inside the ASML machine above is orders of magnitude more impressive.

[98elise]

JoshSm said:

98elise said:

Catching a massive booster isn't anything? Personally I thought it was an amazing feat.

The thing with rocket science is it really isn't that complicated.

It's sort of impressive looking but if you run through the list of what's needed to make it actually work it's not that long.

Tell that to the Engineers working on Starship. It seems to fail a lot for something that isn't complicated.

[Evanivitch]

98elise said:

JoshSm said:

98elise said:

Catching a massive booster isn't anything? Personally I thought it was an amazing feat.

The thing with rocket science is it really isn't that complicated.

It's sort of impressive looking but if you run through the list of what's needed to make it actually work it's not that long.

Tell that to the Engineers working on Starship. It seems to fail a lot for something that isn't complicated.

That's slightly disingenuous given that we know their appetite for failure is very different to legacy projects. Using a fail-fast philosophy just means you accept that risk and ensure everything is in place to learn from it for the next iteration (I.e. instrumentation and telemetry).

[Simpo Two]

I expect the ASML machine has gone wrong a few times. The difference is that you just get a few bent chips rather than Hiroshima.

[RizzoTheRat]

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

[LivLL]

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Even crazier to think all 10000 will likely have burnt up on Red entry in less than 7 years. What a cadence they need to keep up!

[thegreenhell]

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Imagine what that picture would look like if they put up the million satellites they want for AI.

[RizzoTheRat]

Also just seen this. I know spaceX have brought the launch costs down a lot, I hadn't realised just how far behind the US (and Europe) were compared to Russia, India and China before SpaceX. I also knew the shuttle was inefficient but holy crap!



(Posted on FB by Chris Hadfield so I'm going to assume the data is correct

[p1stonhead]

LivLL said:

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Even crazier to think all 10000 will likely have burnt up on Red entry in less than 7 years. What a cadence they need to keep up!

Wait is that true?

Are they just going to keep replenishing them?

[loudlashadjuster]

p1stonhead said:

LivLL said:

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Even crazier to think all 10000 will likely have burnt up on Red entry in less than 7 years. What a cadence they need to keep up!

Wait is that true?

Are they just going to keep replenishing them?

Yes, they are in very low orbits which decay rapidly. They aren’t big enough to have any meaningful amount of propellant so can’t boost themselves, so SpaceX needs to keep chucking ‘em up there to maintain service levels.

In perpetuity.

[p1stonhead]

loudlashadjuster said:

p1stonhead said:

LivLL said:

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Even crazier to think all 10000 will likely have burnt up on Red entry in less than 7 years. What a cadence they need to keep up!

Wait is that true?

Are they just going to keep replenishing them?

Yes, they are in very low orbits which decay rapidly. They aren t big enough to have any meaningful amount of propellant so can t boost themselves, so SpaceX needs to keep chucking em up there to maintain service levels.

In perpetuity.

Is….that actually insane and a ridiculous waste of, well everything, or am I missing something?

[outnumbered]

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

If you look up at night with a clear sky these days, there always seems to be at least one in view.

[LivLL]

p1stonhead said:

Is .that actually insane and a ridiculous waste of, well everything, or am I missing something?

It is but $$$$$ for someone so they probably don't care.

[Flooble]

Bear in mind that the Shuttle was 75% vehicle so that makes the payload figure look worse.

I see Starlink are now offering plans for £25 a month

[Peterpetrole]

p1stonhead said:

loudlashadjuster said:

p1stonhead said:

LivLL said:

RizzoTheRat said:

They launched the 10,000'th starlink satellite this week, that's a crazy number.

Interesting composite picture



https://explorersweb.com/wtih-spacexs-10000th-sate...

Even crazier to think all 10000 will likely have burnt up on Red entry in less than 7 years. What a cadence they need to keep up!

Wait is that true?

Are they just going to keep replenishing them?

Yes, they are in very low orbits which decay rapidly. They aren t big enough to have any meaningful amount of propellant so can t boost themselves, so SpaceX needs to keep chucking em up there to maintain service levels.

In perpetuity.

Is .that actually insane and a ridiculous waste of, well everything, or am I missing something?

Yes and no, Starlink are electronics based, so technically obsolete in 7 years any way - i.e. one Starlink satellite launched in ten years time would likely do the job of ten Starlinks with current tech.

No different to millions of obsolete working plasma tvs being chucked in landfill.

[MartG]

p1stonhead said:

Is .that actually insane and a ridiculous waste of, well everything, or am I missing something?

They'd last longer if they placed them in a higher orbit, but that would increase latency due to speed-of-light

It's a balancing act between latency and lifespan