> And JWST took 20 years to develop. Likely a great deal of that was trying to optimize it for weight. Also, it was a government program - not known for cost or time efficiency.
Are you imaginging a JWST or similar telescope that isn't a government program?
Why not? Capitalism has a record of funding a lot of scientific expeditions, for example.
Let's say Microsoft wanted to generate goodwill in the scientific community? What could be better than funding a space telescope?
What wouldn't it be useful for? 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope 3. build a base on the moon 4. make a mission to Mars possible
> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes The limitation there is capable RTGs, not launch vehicles. > 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either. > 3. build a base on the moon For whom? Launching stuff is one thing, but you'd need to design, build, maintain, and supply such station. If you think the ISS was expensive, a Moon base would dwarf the ISS costs. Ev…
A lot of people wondered why Boeing was blowing all this money developing the 747. Who needed an airplane that big?
It turned out to be the biggest moneymaker ever for Boeing - and the people who bought them.
Asteroid mining. I really cant believe its not on Elon's mind, talk about disruptive!
Why? There are no minerals available in space that wouldn't be cheaper to mine on Earth. Even with Starship's vastly reduced costs. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/27/there-are-no-k...
I think the argument would be in conjunction with orbital factories.
The cost may well be (much) higher than mining it on earth, but could still be much less than mining it on earth and then launching it to geosync.
> And JWST took 20 years to develop. Likely a great deal of that was trying to optimize it for weight. Also, it was a government program - not known for cost or time efficiency.
When did private business pay for scientific instruments, like particle colliders and gravity enterferometers?
They did before the government got involved in it.
But if you want to spend $23 billion for a collider, you're probably going to need to forcibly take the money to do it. Of course, it's worth it if it's someone else's money.
> I do suspect we need to find commercial enterprises to justify the Starship economics and I'm just not sure what that looks like yet. At $1 MM per launch with 100 t per launch puts Starship roughly at $10 per kg. Asteroid mining: Will be a huge industry. Especially with growing environmental concerns all around Earth. Waste can basically be disposed of very cheaply into the atmosphere or sun. Starlink, Kupier, etc…
The military wants a C-130 payload anywhere in the world in 1 hour. Military up the wazoo in contracts. Militarization of space is inevitable, they'll want bases up there. If the payload costs are true for starship, they'll put big ones up there. Starship will represent a total paradigm change in space superiority on economics alone. I'm surprised China and Russia aren't loudly complaining about this. It would enable…
> they'll want bases up there
They'll be highly expensive and highly vulnerable targets. You can't armor a space station.
What wouldn't it be useful for? 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope 3. build a base on the moon 4. make a mission to Mars possible
> 1. bigger and much more capable interplanetary probes The limitation there is capable RTGs, not launch vehicles. > 2. a much cheaper Webb telescope Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either. > 3. build a base on the moon For whom? Launching stuff is one thing, but you'd need to design, build, maintain, and supply such station. If you think the ISS was expensive, a Moon base would dwarf the ISS costs. Ev…
> Webb couldn't have fit into a Starship fairing either.
Let's all quit at the very first obstacle!
Did you know that a lot of things don't fit into a 747, either?
You raise a good point: taking multiple payloads could help bridge this gap. But I still believe it'll take quite awhile to match the economics of an F9 launch (assuming that payload is within the launch parameters). 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.
> Falcon Heavy is again evidence of this. 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 ot…
Gravity and atmospheric drag does most of the slowing down of those boosters for free. The first stage uses something like 87% of it’s takeoff weight in fuel to get it and the second stage up to speed, but only 0.5% of it’s takeoff weight in fuel to slow down and land at sea.
https://archive.is/1IIml BTW, if you like the Energia rocket and heavy metal, you might like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVWfqOSdzs4 . This quote (from the article) is astounding: > [SpaceX] has pulled off 111 Falcon 9 launches in a row without failure
