wumpus Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 15 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Are they really? Or is this just a side bet that would be nice to win but won't ruin them if they lose? I doubt they have bet the company on Starlink (doesn't Google have money in it as well), but they have more or less bet the company on Starship, and Starlink is its only current job (although presumably Starship could launch multiple birds into reasonably close orbits at Falcon9 prices). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 6 hours ago, Kerbal7 said: Starlink needs to be cancelled. 5G is fast and cell towers are almost everywhere and soon to be worldwide. No one is going to be interested in laggy expensive internet. I don't like filling up the night's sky anymore with junk for my telescope anyways. This is another of Musk's money losers. Like that silly Mars rocket he's building. It's nothing like a real spaceship and was constructed by a company that makes water towers. It's another of this charlatans PR stunts to hustle money out of investors. We do know Tesla is headed to bankruptcy as soon as investors get wise. It losing billions every year. And now with such bad management Musk is putting SpaceX in bankruptcy jeopardy too. In five years, when the dust settles on Mar's rockets and Martian colonies we'll see what's left. Everything he touches loses money. The big money maker for Starlink is not something 5G could possibly compete with. Starlink will make huge amounts of money by providing a faster data connection between financial markets. A whole new undersea cable was laid to gain less than a 10% reduction in latency between New York and London markets, and Starlink can cut latency to less than half that of an undersea cable because of how much slower light moves through glass than through a vacuum. You think financial institutions who are paying 7 or 8 figures to put their computers half a block closer to wall-street computers would not offer Starlink huge sums for halving the latency of their updates for over-seas market conditions? Using the excess bandwith to provide low-cost internet for everyone else is just an after-thought that happens to make for good PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Technical Ben said: No. There will not be. Look at where it is in its trajectory and entry. Thus if it's not there, it won't be there. 40km altitude for entry burn center I think (starts around 50km, ends around 30). During this timeframe an ASDS landing sheds about a km/s (those being the highest velocity entries F9 S1 does). This is the same altitude regime where Shuttle lost most of her velocity (aerodynamically), though peak heating on Shuttle was at higher altitude, I think, but Shuttle was also at substantially higher velocity. What do you mean by "not there?" Do you know what altitude each process dominates, if so, just show us. Edited August 22, 2019 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf Page 30 fairly interesting (costs by vehicle from GAO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 (So, Proton-M is cheapest one, lol.) What looks sudden - Pegasus XL is the most expensive. They said, a winged first stage, an aerial start, blah-blah. and here it is, by an order of magnitude more expensive than any other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: (So, Proton-M is cheapest one, lol.) What looks sudden - Pegasus XL is the most expensive. They said, a winged first stage, an aerial start, blah-blah. and here it is, by an order of magnitude more expensive than any other. It's by far the smallest listed in that table. It has one of the lowest absolute costs, but on a per kg basis is the highest. Sounds like economy of scale and pricing for the niche market of 450 kg sats. Also, air (and sea) launch has always been more about the latitude flexibility than necessarily a price advantage over fixed ground base launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 13 hours ago, kerbiloid said: So, Proton-M is cheapest one, lol. I'm not sure about that. I think the table might have a typo. I would expect price per kg to LEO would be launch cost/max payload. Checking a few of the rows in the table that seems to hold for most. But not for SpaceX. $61,200,000/22,800kg = $2,684/kg. Which would make SpaceX the cheapest. (Note the two transposed digits. Probably a simple typo. Also note I didn't read the report, but just the table, so perhaps I'm missing something). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Max to LEO as a price per kg is a useful comparison, I suppose, but it's only good for that, comparison. The reality is that since F9 has so much margin that the large majority of that mass to LEO is necessarily propellant. Cost/kg to GTO might be more useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 So this was mildly amusing. Remember SSO-A from last December? Apparently one of the cubesats onboard failed to get the proper license before launch and was effectively “impounded” by Spaceflight: Spoiler There was, though, a last-minute change to those plans. One customer, he said, had its cubesat locked in its dispenser, remaining attached to the payload adapter. “They were unable to get the appropriate licensing,” he said. “They swore they were going to get it, and we integrated them under the condition that they have to show their licensing. They didn’t, so we sealed the container.” Spaceflight didn’t identify that satellite, but industry sources said it was Elysium Star 2, a one-unit cubesat from Elysium Space, a company that offers to fly cremated remains into space. Thomas Civeit, founder and chief executive of Elysium Space, confirmed their satellite remained attached to the payload adapter. “Elysium Space did receive a license for its cubesat but I guess Spaceflight made its decision based on multiple factors, which included its relationship with all the agencies involved in the process,” he said Aug. 13. You will go to space today, but you won’t get to do anything there! ...papers, please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Aww. It would suck to be a customer of Elysium if that is the case. Of all the payloads it could happen to it was the emotional one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Meh. The ashes still went to orbit. The difference is how long before they re-enter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Aww. It would suck to be a customer of Elysium if that is the case. Of all the payloads it could happen to it was the emotional one. Can’t feel too bad for someone who spent so much money on such a vain memorial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Nightside said: Can’t feel too bad for someone who spent so much money on such a vain memorial. Well, that money wasn't doing them any good anymore anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Nightside said: Can’t feel too bad for someone who spent so much money on such a vain memorial. I wouldn't call it a vain memorial. It's an attempt to get to space one way or another, something I hope to do one day, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: I wouldn't call it a vain memorial. It's an attempt to get to space one way or another, something I hope to do one day, What's it cost to launch a cube? $100000? The ego makes me cringe. I don't begrudge the wealthy living people who want to spend their money tripping to space, but it is a tastelessly desperate cry for a little smidgen of immortality. ...a decaying LEO just seems like putting off the inevitable for just a little longer. On the other hand, I think I could get behind somebody wanting to crash their ashes into the moon... but only if they calculated the trajectory themselves. Edited August 24, 2019 by Nightside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Nightside said: What's it cost to launch a cube? $100000? Price per customer is $2500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nightside said: What's it cost to launch a cube? $100000? The ego makes me cringe. I don't begrudge the wealthy living people who want to spend their money tripping to space, but it is a tastelessly desperate cry for a little smidgen of immortality. Not much ROI on that, either. I don’t really get sending some (it’s only a few grams, not the whole lot) of your ashes to LEO where they’re just gonna reenter and get vaporized within a few years, anyway. BLEO, to the Mün or interplanetary would seem more fitting. ...complete with “...if you have to ask...” cost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Price per customer is $2500. Is that all? Well in that case, its cheaper than a funeral, but apparently not enough profit margin for the company to grease whatever gears it needed to get their paperwork in order. Although I like the idea of lower cost of access to space for planetary exploration and human adventure, I think we are also in for an era of lots of cheap, poorly designed pet satellites cluttering up LEO. I'm against clutter on principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 53 minutes ago, Nightside said: Although I like the idea of lower cost of access to space for planetary exploration and human adventure, I think we are also in for an era of lots of cheap, poorly designed pet satellites cluttering up LEO. I'm against clutter on principle. You need to file for paperwork, so, no, cheap cubesats will still have decent quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) Iirc, the very first episode of Planetes was about removing such memorials from LEO. But now I start worrying about Starship passenger spacelines. Spoiler He didn't buy a ticket. Edited August 24, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Nightside said: What's it cost to launch a cube? $100000? The ego makes me cringe. I don't begrudge the wealthy living people who want to spend their money tripping to space, but it is a tastelessly desperate cry for a little smidgen of immortality. ...a decaying LEO just seems like putting off the inevitable for just a little longer. On the other hand, I think I could get behind somebody wanting to crash their ashes into the moon... but only if they calculated the trajectory themselves. Nah, we should only allow them in graveyard orbits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, Nothalogh said: Nah, we should only allow them in graveyard orbits oh for Kerm’s sake, how’d I miss the setup here?? Well played, sir, well played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Just now, CatastrophicFailure said: oh for Kerm’s sake, how’d I miss the setup here?? Well played, sir, well played. Somebody had to do it, I waited several hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 13 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: oh for Kerm’s sake, how’d I miss the setup here?? Well played, sir, well played. And yes Elon, for reference and to not confuse none KSP players. This is an starship. This is an very capable fully reusable orbital rocket, who can be used in the inner solar system with orbital refueling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Finally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.