Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we have to work with what information we have. No sorry, if you know the numbers you have are clearly bias and wrong then you don't need to work with them.
Do you know SpaceX's cash flow? If so, please share. Otherwise, I can just claim you are speculating towards your own bias. If you think the data is bad, at best all you can claim is "we don't know"
SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
151–160 of 189 posts
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#152Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Apple could be called a "phone factory company". Could it? It doesn't actually make them. It hires 3rd party companies for that. Where Ford owns/operates factories that produces their products. Unless I'm confused and Ford doesn't own their factories?
Ownership doesn't seem particularly important. Apple designs the specifications, the supply chains, and the QC, leaving a few pieces of the labor supply up to partners. Still seems like a phone factory company, even if they don't own everything soup to nuts like early auto factories tried to do.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment The killer app for the military is missile defense. Currently the US has about 4 dozen ground based midcourse interceptors. Each costs more than $100 million and carries one single exo-atmospheric kill vehicle capable of destroying one single incoming threat. The kill vehicle weights 64 kg. A single starship could carry more than 1000 k…
Cryogenic liquid fueled rockets don't make good standby vehicles. There is a reason they use solid fueled rockets primarily.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be curious how many scrubs are technically necessary, vs precautionary. If war is afoot you’re willing to take far more risks, with the weather and with sensor glitches.
I imagine there's a lot to go into it. For example, if it's a one-of-a-kind weapon with a long lead time to develop, they probably have a pretty low risk threshold.
You could spare to blow all that during takeoff. Whatever, let's try again in four hours.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we prettymuch agree to, but I have an obvious quibbling problem. > I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capitalism that can exist outside of government money. (Which, ironically, is a point many people hold against legacy aerospace). And I think that latter point is relevant because SpaceX (and Musk himself) is often held up as some sort of capitalistic ideal and any counterpoint to that mak…
This isn’t new. It’s exactly how the airplane was invented over 100+ years ago. The Army didn’t tell Orville and Wilbur how to build. They dangled the carrot of a lucrative military contract to incentivize their innovation. It’s what transitioned the effort from hobbyists to an actual industry. There was no “industry” until the govt put up money because the govt was really the only entity that could bear that kind of…
I agaree that the government contracts are a carrot, and broadly speaking supports the entire space industry. Im not debating that at all.
However, I do think there is a narrative difference between companies that that humm along doing the same thing eating eating their carrots, and a new one that beats them at their own game and steals all the carrots. The carrots have been there for decades, and then someone came along and radically shakes up the industry and it makes it jump forward. Thats exciting!
It is like when a chef tells the customer "I wont make what you ordered, But I will make something so much better you can't resist.
It is as if Lockeed were to tell the military I won't build the F-35 to your specs, but when you see it, you will want it more than what you designed.
This is exciting because it marks a transition of industry dynamics. Something changed, and it wasn't the carrots. SpaceX brought something new to the table in a 60 industry, and they deserve credit for that change. The government deserves credit too, but the dynamic is different than if it were year 1 of the space industry.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment The killer app for the military is missile defense. Currently the US has about 4 dozen ground based midcourse interceptors. Each costs more than $100 million and carries one single exo-atmospheric kill vehicle capable of destroying one single incoming threat. The kill vehicle weights 64 kg. A single starship could carry more than 1000 k…
Cryogenic liquid fueled rockets don't make good standby vehicles. There is a reason they use solid fueled rockets primarily.
Starship also allows for enough mass to orbit to make Star Wars legitimately viable.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but this is complete nonsense. You can literally just go threw the list of their launches on Wikipedia an notice that nothing close to even 80% of them are for the government. And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of its revenue. The numbers you present are ridicoulus, they have easily more money just from human space flight from Polaris and Axiom.
The bulk of their own launches are for their own infrastructure. That doesn't bring revenue at the launch date. They aren't paying themselves to launch their equipment; it's an investment in future revenue. Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1. > And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of…
Honestly I don't get your issue. You can just go to wikipedia and look at the list of the launches. So clearly the 98% is wrong, this isn't a question, its not speculation.
Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment The killer app for the military is missile defense. Currently the US has about 4 dozen ground based midcourse interceptors. Each costs more than $100 million and carries one single exo-atmospheric kill vehicle capable of destroying one single incoming threat. The kill vehicle weights 64 kg. A single starship could carry more than 1000 k…
Cryogenic liquid fueled rockets don't make good standby vehicles. There is a reason they use solid fueled rockets primarily.