Has Elon Musk revived interest in space? Are we on the cusp of a new space age?

[Easo]

Only one engine fired on landing and it went sideways, pretty much literally.

It was a nice boom. This is why I watch these test flights, great booms that aren't disasterous as they're expected to go boom.

Yeah, it both looks good and provides valuable info for the next attempt to fix issues.

[cubby]

Only one engine fired on landing and it went sideways, pretty much literally.

It was a nice boom. This is why I watch these test flights, great booms that aren't disasterous as they're expected to go boom.

Looks like they are working on redundant refiring mechanisms for the Falcon 9 engines on the SN10. Apparently it was an issue on both the SN8 and SN9.

[Voidwielder]

Looks like they are working on redundant refiring mechanisms for the Falcon 9 engines on the SN10. Apparently it was an issue on both the SN8 and SN9.

Starship doesn't use Merlins.

[cubby]

Starship doesn't use Merlins.

Can you please elaborate?

Edit: got it squared away. Thanks.

[Edge-]

Can you please elaborate?

It uses Raptor engines - https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

[cubby]

It uses Raptor engines - https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

Ah, ok - by me referring to the Falcon9 engine, I was referencing the wrong one, as the Starship uses a different one. Thanks for the clarification.

[Edge-]

Ah, ok - by me referring to the Falcon9 engine, I was referencing the wrong one, as the Starship uses a different one. Thanks for the clarification.

Ye, Merlin vs. Raptor.

I just like the names of the engines, and the Merlins always make me think of old Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in planes during WWII.

[cubby]

NASA taps SpaceX to bring its Gateway station to the Moon

Just another indication of how important private space ventures will be to pushing the envelope of exploration in the coming decades. I love NASA and all they've done, but the private ventures are passing them by like a Ferrari vs a tricycle.

When the first two segments of NASA’s Gateway station make their way to the Moon sometime in 2024, they’ll be carried into space by a Falcon Heavy rocket. The $331.8 million agreement, which the agency announced on Tuesday, is the second launch contract NASA has awarded to SpaceX in as many weeks.

Once it’s safely in lunar orbit, the Gateway will serve as a way station for astronauts and equipment heading to the Moon as part of NASA’s Artemis program. The pair of modules SpaceX will ferry into space are the power and propulsion element (PPE) and the habitation and logistics outpost (HALO), which two separate companies are building for NASA for $375 million and $187 million respectively. The former will provide Gateway with power and allow the station to move to different lunar orbits, while the latter will give astronauts a place to stay on their way to the Moon. The mission will blast off from Kennedy Space Center in May of 2024 at the earliest.

In the lead up to Artemis, NASA has been awarding contracts to private companies to speed up the project’s timeline. In January, however, it came out that the agency had quietly pushed back the award timeframe for two lander contracts from late February to the end of April, which has cast doubt over whether NASA will be able to meet its ambitious 2024 goal for Artemis.

The last paragraph, while unfortunate, isn't surprising. The SLS is a ridiculous cost-overrun project that currently plans on using a broken capsule in their 2nd test launch in 15 years, IF the rocket can be readied by the end of this year.

[BorisVivienne]

I think that Elon Musk is actually just an alien that's all

[cubby]

Looks like Starlink has a math problem for their goal of $30B in annual revenue by 2025.

Interesting article pointing out that the number of practical users on Starlinks internet service makes those revenue goals an order of magnitude unrealistic. It comes down to how many internet users each satellite can realistically support, and how that impacts revenue.

You see, at last report, SpaceX had about 1,100 Starlink satellites in orbit. It's producing 120 satellites per month, and launching them as fast as it can crank them out. At its current pace, SpaceX should orbit 1,440 new satellites per year, and easily achieve its targeted 4,425 satellites in orbit by 2024. By 2025, it could hit 6,000 satellites -- halfway to its ultimate goal of putting 12,000 Starlinks in orbit.

But even after SpaceX reaches that goal, its satellite network won't be able to support nearly enough bandwidth to generate $30 billion in annual revenue.

Consider: SpaceX says that each Starlink satellite can support a maximum of 23 gigabits per second (Gb/s) of downloads. With 12,000 satellites, that works out to the network as a whole supporting 276,000 Gb/s in traffic.

That's an impressive amount of bandwidth, and at average download speeds per user of 100 megabits per second (Mb/s) currently, it suggests Starlink could support 2.76 million users using the network simultaneously, worldwide. Problem is, at $99 per month for internet service, times 12 months in a year, that works out to not $30 billion per year in revenue, but $3.3 billion.

[StayTuned]

Looks like Starlink has a math problem for their goal of $30B in annual revenue by 2025.

Interesting article pointing out that the number of practical users on Starlinks internet service makes those revenue goals an order of magnitude unrealistic. It comes down to how many internet users each satellite can realistically support, and how that impacts revenue.

Uhh nobody gonna talk about the fact that their satellites have only 4 years lifetime, and that they need tens of thousands of satellites at all times to keep this running?

I have no idea how they want to be profitable.

I have no idea how any of this can be considered sustainable either.

Unless of course the 4 years lifetime is BS, but I do remember reading that

[cubby]

I have no idea about the actual numbers, but do all users actually use that 100 megabits per second all the time? Isn't that 276,000 Gb/s traffic just the absolute maximum?

The article covered that a bit, but yeah, there is issue with their numbers in the sense of maximum use all the time. We'll have to see how it plays out. Perhaps the satellites themselves can handle more than previously reported.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhh nobody gonna talk about the fact that their satellites have only 4 years lifetime, and that they need tens of thousands of satellites at all times to keep this running?

I have no idea how they want to be profitable.

I have no idea how any of this can be considered sustainable either.

Unless of course the 4 years lifetime is BS, but I do remember reading that

Wasn't even mentioned in the article. If the 4 years is even remotely accurate, they will have sustainability problems as well. Of course, if there is constant turnover, upgraded satellites mean better bandwidth, so perhaps that was already factored in.

[StayTuned]

The article covered that a bit, but yeah, there is issue with their numbers in the sense of maximum use all the time. We'll have to see how it plays out. Perhaps the satellites themselves can handle more than previously reported.

- - - Updated - - -



Wasn't even mentioned in the article. If the 4 years is even remotely accurate, they will have sustainability problems as well. Of course, if there is constant turnover, upgraded satellites mean better bandwidth, so perhaps that was already factored in.

Just read again about it.

All (V)LEO type satellites have a lifespan of 4-5 years.
I'm not sure about the details of Starlink and what will be LEO and how many will be stationed at higher orbits, but this seems rather wasteful.

I want the tech, but I am at odds with the waste we're putting up there, and how much money this all costs

[cubby]

Just read again about it.

All (V)LEO type satellites have a lifespan of 4-5 years.
I'm not sure about the details of Starlink and what will be LEO and how many will be stationed at higher orbits, but this seems rather wasteful.

I want the tech, but I am at odds with the waste we're putting up there, and how much money this all costs

I agree about the waste - I also read that Starlink designed the LEO's to deorbit when their lifespan ends. So hopefully that will remove that issue. Otherwise, yeah, getting too cluttered already.

[StayTuned]

Iirc everything in LEO deorbits anyway because of atmospheric drag at some point.

Not a great way in my opinion. But a necessary evil perhaps? Future will tell

[StayTuned]

I mean, it's great that the Starlink satellites deorbit via propulsion system at the end of their life, but they would deorbit anyway, so the trash problem ain't that bad.

Trash maybe not, but sky pollution certainly. Plus, the absurd amount of satellites Elon wants to deploy to sustain a global Starlink will cost a sheer ton of money and resources and harm the planet further.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...ent-this-time#

is a good article about it.

That kind of customization, combined with long life-span requirements, explains why a typical large communications satellite costs from $50,000 to $60,000 per kilogram.18If costs remain at this level, large LEO constellations would be completely unaffordable. Although some recent GEO communications satellites reportedly are less expensive, this information has not yet been detailed publicly.

A single large LEO constellation will require anywhere from three to 40 launches a year (depending on the size of the constellation and rocket type), both initially and during maintenance.

To ensure a viable business, launch providers will probably need to reduce the cost to orbit below $2,000 per kilogram.

http://cannae.com/space-freighter/ says

Launch costs range from approximately $5000 per kg to LEO to $30,000 per kg to GEO.

I mean... sure, in future it will be cheaper to launch satellites into orbit but Starlink requires thousands and thousands of them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/spac...per-month.html

Starlink is SpaceX’s ambitious plan to build an interconnected network of about 12,000 small satellites, to beam high-speed internet from orbit to anywhere in the world.

12.000 god damn satellites just SpaceX. 12 fucking thousand.

https://www.geospatialworld.net/blog...nt-is-crucial/

April 1, 2020, there were a total of 2,666 satellites in Space, of which 1,918 were in low Earth orbit (LEO).

We currently in total don't even have 3000 up there. Elon, what???

[cubby]

Trash maybe not, but sky pollution certainly. Plus, the absurd amount of satellites Elon wants to deploy to sustain a global Starlink will cost a sheer ton of money and resources and harm the planet further.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...ent-this-time#

is a good article about it.







http://cannae.com/space-freighter/ says



I mean... sure, in future it will be cheaper to launch satellites into orbit but Starlink requires thousands and thousands of them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/spac...per-month.html



12.000 god damn satellites just SpaceX. 12 fucking thousand.

https://www.geospatialworld.net/blog...nt-is-crucial/



We currently in total don't even have 3000 up there. Elon, what???

The clutter factor is going to be a major issue. I don't know much about the licensing requirements for satellites but I'm wondering if SpaceX/StarLink have more hoops to jump through before they can fully launch 12,000 LEO.