371–380 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that would lessen their concerns? Exactly because space is a vacuum, cooling is harder since you can't do convection. The math still checks out though. Scott Manley did a video on it, and the top comment has some corrections: https://youtu.be/FlQYU3m1e80
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just need radiators, no fans, no piping, no ac compressors, no moving parts.
How? There is no heat dissipation without an atmosphere. I mean, you have dissipation via radiation but that’s very slow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that would lessen their concerns? Exactly because space is a vacuum, cooling is harder since you can't do convection. The math still checks out though. Scott Manley did a video on it, and the top comment has some corrections: https://youtu.be/FlQYU3m1e80
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? There is no heat dissipation without an atmosphere. I mean, you have dissipation via radiation but that’s very slow
Not that slow if the temperature is high enough. Power radiated is proportional to T^4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If starship is around $100m per launch right now, they can launch 300 ships with the IPO. or 30,000T in orbit. Uh, starship is still a development program. There's 1 launch pad right now able to launch V3. No starship has flown with an actual live payload. The starlinks going out the PEZ dispenser are probably the only thing launching on it anytime soon. Basically, Starship launching thousands of tons to orbit isn'…
we will see tomorrow, won't we :) But you are right to call out the launch infrastructure as the true bottleneck. They have 3 pads currently under development. So in 6-9 months they'll have 4 operational pads. Also, how do they heat tiles hold up? How fast can they catch, refurbish and relaunch is what remains. I'm confident, and will be putting my money where my mouth is (By investing in the IPO) that they will have…
Before Starlink we only send up like 1k ton of payload.
Starlink is the only reason why it jumped to 3k tons.
So SpaceX builds all of this to send its own stuff up which is basically only Starlink and in the future its own competition (amazon and leo). For something which is only consumed by 10 million customers right now and they increased the price for starlink which makes it even less competitive.
And Spacex has to send up Starlink every 5 years which keeps revenue low and Starlink is hard llinear growth as one Starlink Satelit can't handle that much traffic.
If his IPO makes all of that money, he will entertain us with funneling billions into a system which will then deliver a handful people onto mars if even.
A person on mars doesn't make money, it costs money.
Whats the goal here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are index funds going to buy it? Market cap is not the only inclusion metric for S&P500, for example.
They just changed the rules for NASDAQ and they are changing the rules for S&P500. The game is rigged. Our pensions and 401Ks are being forced to buy this slop. They can't resist taking all of the money off the table.
Edit: here's one https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1t2msfk/wsj_sto...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are index funds going to buy it? Market cap is not the only inclusion metric for S&P500, for example.
They just changed the rules for NASDAQ and they are changing the rules for S&P500. The game is rigged. Our pensions and 401Ks are being forced to buy this slop. They can't resist taking all of the money off the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA had a pretty consistent budget for 30+ years, and even if one contract gets canceled. SpaceX is by far best and most important NASA supplier, whatever NASA does with its budget, SpaceX would likely be involved. And Starship primary mission is next generation Starlink, not NASA. > the debris field of two Starships breaking up in medium orbit could wipe out significant parts of the starlink constellation Do you ha…
>Do you have any evidence of that? Evidence of what? That a space ship that breaks down releases debris? Or that "spaceship" is one of the biggest space vehicle right now? >NASA wouldn't allow operations that could potentially destroy most sats around the world in any plan it signs. How much does that hold when Elon has the ear of a know-nothing president who is absolutely unconcerned by any evidence?
Have you done any actual analysis on the flight path, how and where docking would happen, the decay orbits and so on, do you have anything modeled? If not I going with NASA and SpaceX analysis over yours.
> How much does that hold when Elon has the ear of a know-nothing president who is absolutely unconcerned by any evidence?
Your argument is that SpaceX would destroy its own multi-billion $ project?
We are the liquidity here. If you have index funds, SpaceX is going to get more of your money much faster and on better terms than any other IPO in history. Even if you love this stock and this valuation, you should find this type of retail investor manipulation disturbing.