Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#171

Post by bumby »

starik36 wrote: post #141
bumby wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.

> 98% of their funding from the govt That is nonsense. Look at their flight manifest and see how many flights are NASA or Space Force. Maybe like 3 launches in the next several months out of planned 25. https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/

Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense".

The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organization who can take those kinds of risks. In turn, this fosters the development of a space industry which can transition to more private revenue streams. Musk himself said they were in the 11th hour of bankruptcy before NASA "saved" them with a huge contract.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#172

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol - wat? As a former air force contracting specialist... This is completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend (Politically, physically and fiscally). Also, no matter how much money you spend or how many bases you build, you can't get 90 minute asset delivery EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, which is every military strategists' wet dreams since alexander. Lastly, if you haven't noticed the military doesn't…

> completely wrong. Bases are not cheap to build, maintain or defend Nobody suggested building more bases. The proposed problem was launch reliability. A major reason for launch scrubs is weather. AustinDev proposed staging in orbit [1]. I said it’s cheaper to have more than one launch location on the ground over more than one launch location in orbit. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35485273

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#173

Post by bumby »

panick21_ wrote: post #158
bumby wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I meant to say Starlink rather then Starship. They have over a million subscribers now. Plus larger clients in shipping and air travel, plus the military. 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.

This doesn’t pass a simple sanity check.

The original claim was “US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage”.

Let’s say it’s by “low double digit percentage” we’re generous and say 20%. (I interpreted their stance to be lower, but they didn’t specify).

We can are there is incomplete data but we have reasonably good data on the the govt side: U.S. govt contacts are at least $5.4B, likely higher. So that means we expect the complementary private side to be 5x, or over $22B. The absolute most optimistic Starlink estimates about $2B through 2023. Do you think the other private streams dwarf Starlink by 10x? I just don’t see how we get there given the govt is still there #1 launch customer after Starlink, and this is the most generous interpretation to steelman the case. The only way is true is if there is some unknown customer launching nearly 3x that of the US govt.

The only way the numbers work out is if the govt is the major revenue stream or there’s some secret launch customer that dwarfs the US space agencies.

It’s a claim based on wishful feeling, not on data.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#174

Post by [deleted] »

elif wrote: post #138
detritus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ughft. I mean: I smoke hashish, but honestly, Musk's adolescent little references like these are really trite and demeaning to the magnitude of what his companies are hoping to achieve. S3XY, poop emoji and 'Titter'. ughft, just stop already.

i don't smoke weed anymore, but it brings me true joy to know that people are so serious that mild harmless fun can bother them.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#175

Post by rqtwteye »

alfiopuglisi wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was definitely not money wasted Sorry, it was absolutely wasted. We could have predictably achieved those benefits for less and quicker, with tens of billions to spare.

Maybe avmich is thinking of the STS (the Space Shuttle)

Probably. The STS was a real advance although crippled by stupid requirements. SLS is nothing new.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#176

Post by nonethewiser »

gitfan86 wrote: post #60
nonethewiser wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you think they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees? That seems like a stretch.

I didn't say that at all

So you agree that is not sound reasoning?

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#177

Post by nonethewiser »

mlsu wrote: post #57
nonethewiser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies? I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include…

Most definitely! I mean, Ford was revolutionary because it was the first car factory company, right? Before that, you had to have a weird german guy hand build your buggy.

Well, they’re a manufacturer. The product is cars. Car factories are a prerequisite.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#178

Post by avmich »

alfiopuglisi wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was definitely not money wasted Sorry, it was absolutely wasted. We could have predictably achieved those benefits for less and quicker, with tens of billions to spare.

Maybe avmich is thinking of the STS (the Space Shuttle)

True :) I completely agree that we'd be better without SLS, but STS is another story. My misunderstanding of what was meant.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#179

Post by bumby »

philistine wrote: post #155
bumby wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly, but what if you're sending dumb munitions, a couple of tanks, or relief to a disaster zone? You could spare to blow all that during takeoff. Whatever, let's try again in four hours.

Launch windows generally aren't open-ended and typically only last a few hours because they are orbit-dependent. That's why when a launch is scrubbed, a window often doesn't open again until days later.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#180

Post by macintux »

bumby wrote: post #179
philistine wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, but what if you're sending dumb munitions, a couple of tanks, or relief to a disaster zone? You could spare to blow all that during takeoff. Whatever, let's try again in four hours.

Launch windows generally aren't open-ended and typically only last a few hours because they are orbit-dependent. That's why when a launch is scrubbed, a window often doesn't open again until days later.

I doubt that matters for point-to-point deliveries like this.
Post reply on HN