Why is SpaceX building a bigger Starship??

Starship, as designed, is already big enough to take everything in the Spaceflight market to orbit in one launch. That being the case, why do we need a bigger one?
#space #spacex #elonmusk
Please support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

New capabilities create new demand. Remember that the CEO of IBM once thought that 4 computers would be enough for the entire US, based on "current demand."

[@Jayf1981]

If one God is meant to be sufficient, even preferable, then four computers seem like a lot.

[@jimmystrickland1034]

Huh?

[@Danny-bd1ch]

Yeah, I heard someone say that we would be landing on Mars with a crewed mission in 2024. Can't remember his name, but it is at the tip of my tongue.

[@jimmystrickland1034]

@@Danny-bd1ch Elon Gump

[@AdrianBoyko]

I guess the difference is that there were MILLIONS of people involved in manual data processing activities when electronic computers became available. In comparison, almost nobody is doing anything in space. Sure, there is a lot of communication and surveillance activity, but that’s it for significant business activity.

[@MuzixMaker]

No one needs more than 640k of memory.

[@RockinRobbins13]

Actually, computers of the time (1981) could address one megabyte (1024k) of memory. 640 mb was for RAM and 384k for ROM/system use. So even then EVERYBODY needed more than 640k of memory. And now you know..........the rest of the story.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

​@@RockinRobbins13 Actually, the first IBM Personal Computer came with 64KB of memory and was expandable to no more than 640KB.

[@RockinRobbins13]

@@frankmcgowan9457 Entire addressable memory couldn't exceed 1MB. That included the 384KB of ROM. The 64K version, of course, had less than 384KB of ROM. lol But it, too, had more than 64K of memory. It had 64K RAM plus whatever ROM. I think it was 8K, but can't confirm that.

[@MuzixMaker]

@@RockinRobbins13 I was paraphrasing a comment made by Bill Gates

[@RockinRobbins13]

@@MuzixMaker Apparently it was never said by Bill Gates. He did say that at the time he thought the 640KB "barrier" would hold the industry for 10 years. Instead, at the end of six years it was an albatross around the PC's neck. They promptly charged through the 1 MB barrier so quickly nobody stopped to mourn the old so-called limits.

[@Ellie-pc4rc]

“We’ll never run out of IP addresses, no way we’ll use all 4 billion” hence why IPv6 was created.

[@danielroden9424]

its only an issue if they cant refuel reliably or rapidly. if they solve it everyone will proclaim how obvious it was.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

That orbital refueling stunt is on the todo list for decades now. It's really time that someone starts with it. It is also much easier than a decade ago, as the common fuels of today are not as temperature sensitive as in the past.

[@nezb01]

If you build it they will come.

[@thomaslanders2073]

The Chinese building entire cities which are now just ghost cities because no one can afford it 🤔

[@ryanb9749]

I ain't afraid of no ghost

[@henryfigueroa375]

Nezb01, I agree with you. When you have a rocket with that much payload, it opens the door for much bigger telescopes or space stations. The possibility is endless, and it gives future designers more room for better technology to space

[@user-kv2gi5en1y]

@@thomaslanders2073 and what exactly did those sities in desert had to offer, nonexisting previously? let alone "no one can afford it" sounds a bit strange below the discussion about too cheap of a vehicle

[@RogerM88]

@@henryfigueroa375 You're forgetting a huge issue for those large payloads...the cargo hatch. And even with a wider configuration, Starship layout won't use all space available with efficiency.

[@ifrisbie]

Simple answer to this question. Because as much as you disbelieve his Mars intentions Elon is very focused on that objective whether folks in the media believe its possible or not. Don't really think he cares if its marketable to other companies in the short term.

[@jamskinner]

You can always add other versions later once this version is mature.

[@jimmystrickland1034]

@@jamskinner sure you can always add more lipstick to a pig.. but in the end, it’s still a 🐽

[@Wirmish]

95% of people around me think Musk is a lunatic and Humans will never live on Mars.

[@yanis905]

@@Wirmish Where do you live?

[@dazm901]

@@yanis905 Earth

[@user-he6tq3dh4y]

Agree with many of the comments re. capabilities creating demand. Remember when no one could use more than 1 Terabyte of storage or 1 MB of RAM?

[@NismoXero]

My first pc had a 4 gig hard drive. It was huge for the time. You couldn't fill it with a 28kbs modem connection 😂

[@bruceperkins2921]

or 10mbps of internet speed is good enough. who would ever need more?

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Hell, I remember when harddrive capacity was counted in MB. 68MegaBytes for a thousand bucks. Needed an extra controller to get RAM above 4MB!

[@user-he6tq3dh4y]

I'm gonna date myself here. My first PC after grad school (floppy disc storage only) had a mega expensive 30 MB hard drive and 14.4 bps modem. State of the art and blazing fast. 😂

[@nikos6220]

If refueling in LEO is reliable, No payload customer will give a rats ass how many starships had to fly to fill the LEO propellant station.

[@cryptosupplyshop3425]

I give AA /Jordan "the money begger " credit for one thing. He figured out that if he critized Starship in all of his videos, he would get more clicks and more comments.

[@patriklindholm7576]

Hence thumbs down and when purporting mere assertions based on personal incredulity as if being the consensus of the space industry, also reporting occasionally. Speaking strictly for myself, from being a sycophant fanboy to a propagator of negative and even nihilistic views compare infamous Thunderfoot, this channel upholder has far too many times crossed the threshold to conspiracy theory and flat out distributing content hostile to science and education with no foothold in reality, thus undersigned visits his ramblings very rarely and has repeatedly been let down when wishing for something grounded in anyhting but irrational kindergarten speculations.

[@omczan]

Elon is referring to his cost to send it to space. The market will determine the cost to the customer. The WAY longer version of the ship will allow them to send lots more starlinks into orbit with each mission.I think specialized variants can be any size for the mission. So a HLS might be short VS the starlink truck version.

[@alaskandonut]

I think you’re right about this. He did not imply each launch would cost customers $2mil.

[@cryptosupplyshop3425]

AA knows that Elon was referring to production costs and not what they would charge a customer. Jordan keeps repeating this because he wants people to write comments to correct him, which helps his channel. Jordan is the only communist on KZbin that wants your money. And people give it to him. He says he's a journalist, but he dresses like a bum, begs for money and he can't put intelligent questions together. He also needs a producer to help him with a live stream....this guys a con artist.

[@SGliderGuy]

No. Starship can do much more than merely reach low earth orbit without refueling in the Expendable mode. Also just because cargo ships will be bigger and longer doesn't mean the lunar lander has to be bigger as well

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

What Jordan is calling a deficiency -- need to refill in-orbit -- is a deliberate design decision. Getting to LEO and getting to anywhere else from LEO are very different problems, and it makes sense that you would use different solutions for the two problems. In-space propulsion is MUCH easier, with MANY more options available, than getting from the ground to LEO, as you don't have to use high thrust, you don't have to worry about aerodynamic forces, and you don't need a heat shield. I expect that eventually almost all launchers will use a two-step process of first getting to LEO, then refilling or transferring to an in-space tug.

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

If this wasn't a problem, no one would've looked at a third stage.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

For those demanding one launch to the moon or high orbit, Raptor-4 will give SpaceX options not currently available. Thrust available will probably be more than twice that available for IFT-1. Build a Raptor-4 equipped clone of that first generation Superheavy and a Raptor-4 version of the shorter first generation Starship. Make an intermediate stage that will make the difference in height between the first gen stack and the third Gen stack. The problem will be bringing this new second stage back for reuse, specifically re-entry. Essentially, go from making a fully reusable two stage rocket to making a fully reusable three stage rocket...

[@mauricegold9377]

@@frankmcgowan9457 I think it was Robert Heinlein who said that Low Earth Orbit is halfway to anywhere.

[@shaung949]

@@TheAngryAstronaut Why would spacex need a third stage when they can refuel the second and send the full amount of cargo anywhere? The depot is a gas station, do you check if a tanker has refilled your local gas station before taking your car there? There will be fuel there before any mission needing it launches. Why reduce the delivery capacity by using a third stage to GEO or other high orbit when the second stage can deliver the full payload.

[@RayCromwell]

​@@frankmcgowan9457 Every time Raptor pushes closer to physical limits, they reduce safety margin, increase wear-and-tear, and reduce reusability. Musk doesn't have Adamantium, he's working with the same physics and materials engineers had 60 years ago. There's a reason why upper stages and landers are designed to be smaller -- the rocket equation, and it makes discarding mass ALOT more efficient than reusing it. Starship might be a great truck for cargo delivery near earth, but as a lander system in gravity wells that have to carry humans safety, it's pretty risky, overly complex. Everything Musk has been promising, we were told about the Space Shuttle. They were going to do one-week turnarounds. Only, the engines needed a ton of refurb, the launch tower needed repair too. Now along comes Musk, promising they're gonna be able to relaunch the tanker 15 times in short order to refuel in orbit, and the landing towers are going to handle the most powerful rocket ever built without significant damage? Who believes this? Musk WAY oversells everything, just like he does with Tesla and FSD, which was promised full robotaxis level 5 autonomy years ago. Even Falcon had these marvelous videos showing Falcon 9 upper stage re-landing via POWERED LANDING. Fantasy. I've been a big Starship fan, but Musks fanboys are way way too enamored with him and unable to be skeptical of fantastical claims and schedules.

[@telfordguy34uk]

Solar power plants in orbit , manufacturing plants in orbit , bio labs in orbit, and space junk clearance are straight off the top of my head .

[@alaskandonut]

Manufacturing wouldn’t make sense… it makes more sense to assemble something on earth and just send into orbit, refuel, and send to mars as opposed to manufacturing in orbit. You’d have to ship all components and machines involved in the entire manufacturing chain into space prior to assembly… seems unwise. Solar power plants in orbit wouldn’t make sense either because how would you transport that power? What would it mostly be used for? Space junk cleanup doesn’t even seem like a plausible expenditure for any government. It’s unlikely we’ll see any of these missions. Once you capture trash, what do you do with it? How can you capture any significant amount? Honestly, there aren’t many uses for that our earth orbit. Research and satellites are the most reasonable tech and starship apparently cant deliver to orbit without refueling. Is there enough demand for the payloads starship can deliver? Maybe not idk.

[@Vaeldarg]

@@alaskandonut Once you get that manufacturing up there, rockets can be built up there already in orbit. For space ships that only ferry between planetary orbits, it means they won't need heat shields and can be made as large as desired. The machines will end up paying for themselves saving future launch costs. (also material from asteroids/within the moon can be processed, without bunch of useless rocks taking up space when sent down to Earth)

[@Geekofarm]

But a 1MW Solar Power Station would weigh about 200 tonnes. Oh. First beam internet to remote locations, then beam them their power.

[@Geekofarm]

@@alaskandonut Retrieving material from outside the Earth's orbit makes that material much, much cheaper. Processing it in space gives you a lot of space-based resources (which otherwise would be heinously expensive) for making things for use up there or down here. Processing does not create environmental toxins or global warming. You can use your space-based power for that, or beam it back to Earth via microwaves - and , no, they're not death rays before anyone harps on about it. Damn handy if you have a spacecraft that can land 200 tonnes of refined cobalt on the return trip too.

[@TimothyLipinski]

Good Comment ! Read "Colonies in Space" by T. A. Heppenheimer... from the last Century and still valid ! tjl

[@nikos6220]

Why in the world would I need a smartphone?!? I only make calls and send text messages 😂

[@Mako2401]

Every satelite, every telescope and payload has always been made with limitations in space in mind. For example the James Webb telescope could have been done in a fraction of the cost if it didnt have to fold out once it was launched in space. So when you have the possibility to launch bigger things in space, more opportubities will arise. Your thinking is very shortsighted.

[@hitempguy]

Build it and they will come. The cost is also no different. We still use semis to ship bags of chips, even though they nowhere near meet the maximum weight of a typical tractor trailer unit

[@Rod_Knee]

The US$2 million dollars per launch is the SpaceX aspirational internal costs. They'll likely charge 20-50 times that to customers.

[@DavidWilliams-ig5ec]

Which will still be cheap by comparison.

[@TheAmericanCatholic]

That’s ridiculous as then they will have competition catch up and surpass them.

[@steven8640]

I agree that’s not what they will charge why AA is fixated on that I don’t know. Also few customers wanted to fly on a pre flown booster before falcon 9 showed how reliable it was. Starship will be a game changer 🎉

[@Rod_Knee]

@@DavidWilliams-ig5ec Absolutely.

[@RonnyWilhelmsen1001]

Good point, as cost and price are two different faces of the same coin. They will of course charge full market price. Say they can get $150 million per launch of Starship as they transition from Falcon 9 and heavy. If they can get $200 million from the military they won't ask for less of course. They can charge extra for special missions such as the HLS and HLS-equivalents, meaning other second stage specializations. The NASA profiles for crew and cargo are good templates and informative for such versions of the Starship second stage, both for cost and price, as new specializations are required - which has been true since the Falcon and Dragon equivalents for NASA over the years. Now, if they can keep costs at low at $2-20 per launch they will do really well from the very beginning as they continue their world(s) domination in the launch market.

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

Short answer is YES! We tend to build around our capacity. Once the tonnage to orbit is there, two things will happen: Cost launch to orbit will decrease, and the use cases will increase.

[@JensLarssonDK]

Why does Starship need to be able to serve all possible needs for you to be satisfied?

[@thirteen28]

Exactly. Where it is not best suited for a particular job (and no rocket will be suitable for all jobs), others in the market will fill the niche.

[@patriklindholm7576]

Spot on. Seems Jordie thinks as if there's not a hairdressing saloon in the plans of a specific mall being built, it shouldn't have had the construction permit in the first place merely because of a personal dandruff issue.

[@JohnHSully]

It’s still very early in its development. Just perfecting the principles and concepts justifies the time and commitment in my opinion.

[@worldkeyvideo9080]

I think the market will come with the capability

[@frankmcgowan9457]

Asit did for the Boeing 747 in airline flight.

[@thirteen28]

@@frankmcgowan9457and as it did for all the apps written for the iPhone and other smartphones

[@chrislivingston2356]

It is very clear you do not understand Starlink. It does not need to compete with current broadband. There are plenty of customers that do not receive good internet access because it is not feasible for the companies to install the infrastructure. I do not disagree that competing would be difficult where there is good access. Fortunately, there are more than enough customers for Starlink.

[@brilliant-handle]

Yeah I don't get why he doesn't understand that starlink serves a different market than standard broadband. Not everyone is crammed into cities with fiber going to every building

[@tomparmenter8665]

Yes, a a Mars colony will need a big starship

[@mudkatt2003]

bro just the fact that starship can launch so much will allow satallite manufacturers to build simpler, heavier sats that are much much cheaper. So launch costs and actual space hardware costs will come down increasing the velocity of space economic activity...

[@robertboudreau8935]

I think you think the future market for Starship is the same as it is today. I believe if a larger low cost rocket is made new markets open up. I also noticed that the main reason the rocket got larger is because he added more fuel. I expect these larger starships will need fewer refuelings.

[@yujinhikita5611]

more fuel, but also an expected increase in total thrust from each engine, this allows the fuel to actually be useful instead of a drag.

[@Geekofarm]

Starlink's market isn't the average city-dweller. It's the people in the rest of the world who, thanks to mobile phones, don't have anyone laying any cable near them and are not likely to. Now, if I had a 200 tonne payload of dirt cheap and a history of beaming stuff to people, know what I'd beam? Space-based solar power. Low altitude SPS from multiple interconnected satellites eliminates the need for geostationary gigastations. A small 1MW LEO one might weigh, oh, I dunno, about 200 tonnes...

[@minmo2288]

The industry has always wanted to build big stuff and just don’t because there isn’t a way to launch it, once it’s up and running people will take advantage, larger station modules, bases, rovers all sorts.

[@jamesretired5979]

Build it and they will come.

[@Codysdab]

Exactly this, no one in the private sector could have considered 100 ton+ payloads at the current price, but at the starship pricing.. Well now you're talking about huge changes to the space market,just limited by imagination and entrepreneurs.

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

Jordan's comment about a larger Starship being harder to aerobrake is wrong, because it is only being stretched in one dimension. This means that its cross-section grows proportionally to its mass, and the braking force is proportional to the cross-section. You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to figure out this one -- high-school physics will do.

[@cacogenicist]

He's not much for physics

[@mudkatt2003]

@@cacogenicist yup

[@MDP1702]

But if the flap size doesn't change, is the growth really proportional? The flaps afterall make up an important point of its aerobraking and -controlling ability.

[@patriklindholm7576]

@@MDP1702 Control mostly, not so much braking.

[@kennethferland5579]

No, you have neglected that Torqe forces incresse faster, because the lever arm length across the vehicle has incressed AND their is more surface area for airodynamic forces to act upon.

[@bru512]

Starship is optimized for two Missions 1) Getting Starlink satellites to LEO and 2) Getting our collective Asses to Mars Period. If anyone has a problem with that, tough nuggies, you will still have the cheapest ride to where ever you want to go in the solar system

[@planetdisco4821]

Starlink is already a game changer for the Aussie outback where you’re lucky in places to even have phone reception and will only continue to gain traction there, as it will in many other parts of the world that have similar issues. It’s not just about the USA lol

[@paullangford8179]

I've driven outback: you're lucky to get a radio station!

[@planetdisco4821]

@@paullangford8179 it’s what I love about it tbh mate

[@waynespringer3320]

I believe you are missing the elephant in the room. Starship in its many configurations is for Mars, period full stop. Now if they can be used in LEO so much the better. But Elon's total focus is on the Red Planet and for that large is needed.

[@TheUtumno]

AA: Most companies dont care about latency? Anyone dealing with video communication cares. Most automation coming in the near future from ai drones to robotics will care about latency

[@yujinhikita5611]

the entire stock market cares a whole ton. and costumers for starlink care.

[@5anahalfhatsize701]

Real Engineering did a vid on how Starlink would make it's money a couple of years ago. Basically said it was because light in a vacuum travels faster than in a fiber optic cable, so you could reduce the ping times for routes such as NY to London by a couple dozen ms or so and you could therefore get the stock exchanges to pay top dollar for that improved speed. Considering how eager Elon is to get the full-sized V2 starlinks up with their P2P laser connectivity, I think he was on to something.

[@unmapped3525]

We don’t expect it to work out overnight, but comparing that broadband to starlink isn’t suitable considering that starlings main market is aimed at people with no to little access to internet and starlink is global, the other one you mentioned is US only.

[@chrisquinn8150]

in the short term they're targeting rural. in the long term starlink will have similar bandwidth, better or similar latency, cheaper network maintenance, and global reach. I expect cell towers will probably quicky become ground relays with starlink uplink so most urban internet will become cellular. expect much better cell coverage as towers can be located anywhere they have power be that solar, wind, hydro, or grid.

[@jamskinner]

Why are you assuming this version of starship will be the moon lander? He already said it will be custom.

[@erikmoore7402]

You realize this is for the mars mission? Doubling the payload cuts the amount of trips to mars from 10,000 to 5,000.

[@swgeared5705]

Mars mission?

[@erikmoore7402]

@swgeared5705 yes. Starship is part of the gateway to mars.

[@swgeared5705]

@erikmoore7402 oh I thought you meant something that had funding

[@erikmoore7402]

@swgeared5705 Could you just make your point instead of little hints about what the heck you're talking about

[@erikmoore7402]

@swgeared5705 Starlink will be used to fund the mars project. Is this the first time you're hearing this?

[@sp00l]

2 million the launch cost not the price they’ll charge

[@michelcote]

Spaceforce

[@Togidubnus]

Don't worry about Spaceforce. They've got their own fleet, and they're not rockets, All that rocketry-based propulsion nonsense is for the birds. It's all a convenient distraction from what they're up to. But then again, according to anyone in any government anywhere, there are no UFOs, there are no ETs. So why a Spaceforce?

[@thomastolan1477]

If these are roughly 10 years apart (version 2 in 5-6 years, version 3 in 15 years) the market will accommodate it. Lunar starship will be the only version designed to land on unprepared locations. It will then build a landing pad for future versions as payload markets require.

[@ducksonplays4190]

We are in fact getting version 2 sometime this year. There have already been parts of version 2 spotted at starbase, and there is planned to be 6 or more launches this year, and with only 3 V1 ships left not including S20 and S26.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

If you think most customers don't care about latency then you probably don't play any video games...

[@francois853]

Most customers aren't gamers...

[@yujinhikita5611]

@@francois853 that would be straight-up wrong. costumers are regular people a lot of games are online and many need good ping to play comfortably. loading pictures videos websites and such need good ping to use comfortably. there's a huge market for that.

[@hallahgray3190]

It seems to me that the starship is being designed like a large delivery truck, and not just a large delivery truck a monster semi. Where the starship would really come into its own is if it’s actually delivering large amounts of cargo to something like a cycler type ship that moves between the Earth, the moon and Mars never landing on either terrestrial body, but simply delivering cargo and personnel.

[@robbumusic]

Re- the upfront cost of Starlink terminals, in New Zealand you can now get Starlink for $0 up-front, with terminals as a no-contract lease for $19NZD/month, and they have cheaper data plans now too.

[@FiryaFYI]

Why would we need phones with screens bigger then 3.5 inch?! Why would we need ipads for?! Phones with more then 500GB?! No one will need that much space. Why do we need streaming for? We can just buy the dvd's. In tech, demand follow supply.

[@Mako2401]

The angry democrat strikes again.

[@mudkatt2003]

@@Mako2401 💯lulz

[@CrimsonTemplar2]

Your point about Starship landing on Mars is very valid. The control authority issues the orbiter experienced when it tried to reenter during IFT3 are going to be close to what they’ll experience at zero elevation on Mars.

[@MrGeneralScar]

BIf youtube existed pre shuttle... I am sure there would have been a creator saying the exact same thing about the shuttle. Once Starship is proven and flying regularly, it will open possibilities for people to create not just heavier satellites or observation equipment, but also larger. Who said it needs to weigh 200 tonnes... Maybe its 900 cubic meters in size but weighs 50 tonnes. Currently some of the heaviest satellites up there are what 9 tonnes or 10 tonnes, despite having rockets that can launch heavier, they may not be able to launch larger physical size payloads. Starship opens the possibility for researchers and military bodies to design heavier and more importantly physically larger satellites. I am sure there are companies and other designers out there that are saying things like... "Damn, if only I could make this thing 2m wider, or 5 tonnes heavier. It'd be so much better then." And if SpaceX can offer a company 1000 cubic meters of payload space for even the same price as a F9 launch, you know said company will be all for using it. Just imagine the types of ride share missions that could be done... Like 500 projects on a single launch vehicle. In any case, once Starship is proven and reliable, the US Military and the world's space agencies will find a use for the extra space and payload capacity. SLS is all fine having managed to get its job done on the first try... But lets face it, it took 12-13 years, 12 metric shitwhacks of coin, and even then it was just old proven tech that was changed slightly for a new purpose and thrown together using factories that already existed. Starship didnt have any factories, SpaceX are building the machine that builds the machine and learning as they go. Its a 100% different philosophy, SLS would have far more of my respect for achieving its goal on the first launch if it wasnt just mostly old Shuttle tech slightly updated and stretched while taking 12 years and an eyewatering amount of cash to make. One thing I can agree on, SLS isnt the future of space flight. Harping on the LEO refuelling aspect is a bit meh, until someone actually sits down and does the maths on exactly how much fuel it would take starship to get to other destinations from Leo, there is no point harping on about how many refuelling missions they will need. After all, they dont fully fuel the A380 or 787 every flight, they give it just enough to get to thier destination with a bit for the alternate, and a bit more for emergency fuel. Same thing will be for Starship, they are not going to throw 3000 tonnes of prop into the thing if it takes only 500 tonnes of prop to get to the moon and back with prop to spare.

[@bradmcgrath358]

Starship isn't too big for the market, the market just hasn't caught up yet. It will though.

[@JohnHSully]

You are an amazing reporter and I’m pretty sure there are other issues that deserve your attention. Please report the issues that really need addressing.

[@SwingAndSway245WBC]

Bigger rockets can be great for launching space telescopes and structures to space

[@RockinRobbins13]

_"Does this increased capacity really do anything more to get us to the Moon or to get us to Mars any quicker or any easier. And more importantly does anybody in the current market or the market we can imagine in the near future gonna have a need for this much capacity from this kind of super rocket?"_ I'll answer your quote with another quote: _"640K ought to be enough for anybody.”_ - Remark attributed to Bill Gates (Founder and CEO of Microsoft), 1981

[@scottdunn7484]

I love what you add to the discussions about space related matters, but in this case, I'm less impressed with this particular analysis. You,as usual, add important points to the conversation, but please consider these points as well. 1. $2M USD is launch cost target estimate for the provider, not the customer. The customer's cost is still whatever the market will bear, and that leaves a lot of headroom for profit. 2. Assuming the terrestrial economy isn't destroyed, Starship's payload capacity, including its projected increase, will enable new space economy that doesn't exist today only because it's not viable today,because Starship isn't ready yet. Today's space economy doesn't need it, tomorrows will. As you have pointed out, once Starship enables space mining, the sky is no longer the limit, it's the floor. 3. What is the long-term survival of human consciousness worth? As long as Elon and the rest of us participating in this can afford it, then let's continue it on the basis of that justification alone. But I believe a space economy will come along behind it. That is icing on the cake. 4. More later.

[@yujinhikita5611]

the internet is a fad. clearly. so we shouldnt invest in it.

[@k53847]

Tankers need mass and volume. The bigger the load the fewer trips. And there are clearly payloads that could use a 200ton cheap delivery. Modern sats are stupid expensive due to need to minimize weight and, due to the expense of a launch and the sat itself, a demand for long operational life.

[@direbearcoat7551]

( Commenting on the video title, before watching the video.) I remember seeing an image of a wall in one of SpaceX's facilities. It was a cross section comparison of Falcon, and a couple of variations of Superheavy/Starship. Not only is Starship going to be taller, it will also become much wider. The prototypes we've been seeing are not the final product that Elon is developing. The stuff going to the moon and that will be used on Earth is the Starship you see in development. The stuff going to Mars and beyond will be much more massive.

[@martinknox9879]

high payload to orbit will create its own demand - to have extraterrestrial manufacturing/asteroid mining etc will need to get enough mass to orbit to create a critical point where it wont need as much from earth but the early days will be very high payload intensive.

[@DeanIllinger]

Of what use is a massive Starship? Space Stations. The more you can haul to orbit, the bigger they can be. And the bigger they are, the more supplies they will regularly need. And where will these stations reside? Most will be in LEO, right where Starship can deliver 200 tons of payload WITHOUT refueling. That's a market that no other launch provider is currently working on a vehicle that can compete on a cost basis. Sure ... ESA will subsidize Arianne, India will subsidize ISRO, and China will subsidize their national launch providers. But many space stations will be commercially-owned, not government owned, and they will want the cheapest price of tons of supplies to orbit. And like Falcon 9, companies that are free to choose and will choose SpaceX because they are Reliable, Regularly Available, AND MOST OF ALL CHEAP! Deano

[@fractalelf7760]

Sounds like a space ark… Elon knows something we don’t.

[@tonyug113]

darn we gonna be eaten by giant insects (old dr who episode)

[@BACA01]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oGeWZnasZ8aCoqM

[@user-eb4qz4hv8z]

You just simplified in-situ methane production. A ship full of cows.

[@crzyking6821]

Theres No Way In Hell im missing a show with the words "Super Duper Rocket" in the thumbnail ... LFG !!! 😅😂

[@Togidubnus]

AA's clearly setting into the British way of life. Nice one.

[@antonnym214]

I'm excited to learn more about Star Lab.

[@danielcorcoran7132]

Business case for 200 ton starship, easy. The bigger the Starship payload the cheaper deep space (anything beyond LEO) payloads become as they no longer need to be extremely optimized for weight. $100 million per flight, not including the 3rd stage, there will quickly be 10 then 20, then 50 flights a year, as 50 different countries can afford to send their own satallite to the moon and every planet.

[@danielcorcoran7132]

I can imagine ten to fifty ton satellites becoming standard, before the weight of the third stage, to the moon and other planets. Perhaps no third stage is minimal or unneeded as Starship could go the whole distance to the moon and other planets without refueling.

[@RogerWilco1]

You seem to be making a silly error here. Payload of 100T to LEO is max to LEO. IF it needs to go to GEO, then it can go there with more fuel-- by having less payload. 50T should mean a lot more fuel left in the tank. Or maybe 25T. Either way, it's still a good platform for accessing those orbits. And that's WITHOUT refueling... but it will be able to be refueled.

[@Geekofarm]

One thing people are missing: Starship could bring a heck of a lot of stuff *back* to Earth.

[@pandemik0]

Many good uses of high payload mass fractions too orbit: 1. Launch entire space stations in one hit. 2. Space-based manurfacturing 3. Space tourism (habitats) 4. Space based power and the biggest reason of all 5. Militarisation of space - No existing demand for these things sure, but build it and they will come. Total addressable market: Trillions!

[@iamscoutstfu]

"What use is starships payload capacity?" Orbital ring. Anyone who builds an orbital ring will own the next 70 years of international trade. They will completely displace international shipping and accelerate economic activity by an order of magnitude, if not more. Own the ring, you own the trade infrastructure. You also own interplanetary launches. So starship could be the rocket used to build the next market inverting infrastructure.

[@craigmuranaka8016]

until they demonstrate a working heat shield system it’s just a big shiny death trap.

[@RogerWilco1]

I'm still at the beginning but yes... look at the transistor compared to tubes. Tubes did everything you need and had a nice warm sound... but the transistor was vastly cheaper... and as a result all kinds of new industries came about. Not just computers but the transistor radio-- a radio you could carry! SpaceX is lowering the cost of a kilogram to orbit... that will make a lot of industries that are not currently feasible, feasible... like asteroid mining, etc.

[@DeanIllinger]

Why such insistence that Starship has "an issue" if it cannot reach EVERY orbit unrefueled. Do we consider trains flawed because they can't go coast-to-coast without refueling. Do you only go on vacations out a distance where you can get out & back on a single tank of gas? No! Refueling is how you get around the tyranny of the Rocket Equation without resorting to expendable stages. Reusability and Refueling are the future. Deano in DC

[@shaung949]

The other point people fail to get is that starship won't be sitting in orbit waiting for tanker starships, there will be a depot with fuel already in orbit: dock, refuel continue mission. The tankers will refuel the depot as an when needed. Everyone goes to the gas station to refuel not the tanker, same here.

[@Llama_Qun]

The market develops based on access, capability and economy

[@Wirmish]

About 30 years ago, Arianespace executives wondered if building a recoverable rocket was a good idea. They came to the conclusion that recovering a rocket would cause technicians to lose jobs. They also concluded that the small number of annual launches did not justify the construction of a recoverable rocket. But there's one thing they didn't know: NEVER BET AGAINST MUSK !

[@tonyug113]

Starlinks considered only :::: Elon stated he wants 40,000 starlinks (know FAA not allowed that yet) --- At Approx 1.5T / satellite -- if F9 can take 25 = 1600 F9 flights -- so say 16 years at current rate -- and with a 4->5 year sat lifespan - impossible to maintain network needs a min of 320 F9 launches/year.... If starship can lift 200T => 125 (say) sats / launch , 40,000 takes 320 launches .. so 64 launches a year to maintain a 40k starlink netwokr -- that seems feasible

[@judedornisch4946]

Add another 6-10 for the DOD's StarShield version. Who knows how many more in support of SpaceX opening up its intra-satillite laser network.

[@yujinhikita5611]

nah they want 12k but want the ability to put 40k up

[@nicolasolton]

You make some good points.

[@davidhanna8470]

Let's just build one that doesn't blow up. Get your tech mature. Get Nasa to build another batch of shuttles. They worked.

[@1ndragunawan]

There are several space tug companies that should be able to deliver payloads from Starship in LEO to any orbit.

[@zachb1706]

Yeah. There’s even a company that does it now made by ex-SpaceX employees

[@antonnym214]

If we need double the capacity, it makes more sense to send two Starships, at least for manned missions, so they can be tethered and provide artificial gravity. Even for unmanned missions, it makes more sense to launch two vehicles, in case something happens to one.

[@lakeline6317]

I can see StarShip as the best option for building space stations. It took more than a decade to complete the ISS. A handful of StarShip launches could deliver a structure much bigger than the ISS, in about 6 months or less time. Space Hotels looks feasible with this capability.

[@AdrianBoyko]

Angry Astronaut just hates tall things. Remember him flipping out over the Blue Origin’s proposed lunar lander?

[@mikeburkart2534]

If starship can get solar into orbit and the electricity is cheaper than land based solar, it's market is nearly infinite. Humans only use about 10% of their energy as electricity. To decarbonize we need 10x-40x (depending on if we use synthetic fuels) of our current grid's power. There is no realistic way we are getting there with earthbound renewables and batteries, we need orbital solar with the possibility to relay energy. If we don't have that, a carbon neutral future is basically impossible. (maybe public might ok nuclear when the deaths start by the millions, but I doubt it)

[@kersebleptes1317]

Fabulous '70s art gallery/studio ambience today!

[@soapbar88]

There are no missions because there are no pre-existing capabilities to even have a market for something this large. Once there are missions available there can be a market. There will be missions if there's a market.

[@bertblankenstein3738]

The one good thing about the rocket falling over is that the people at the top won't need to rappel to the surfsce.

[@tristanhore8519]

A couple of observations: 1. If the average launch cost is lower than for falcon, the payload requirement is immaterial, cheaper is cheaper, higher reusability would pay off. Let's say that is $60m for up to 100 tons to Leo. That is a market per kg price already perhaps a fifth of the cheapest current launch. 2. If launch cost per Kg fall, the economics changes for delivery to final orbit, I expect to see off the shelf orbital busses, and soon after space tug services for delivery to order. If you have to add a delivery booster with the same mass as your primary payload for each satellite, it would likely still be cheaper. 3. As you noted Starlink is profitable. However you did not note that it has only just begun to address mobile data applications, and has successfully demonstrated direct to cell phone technology. I don't think they will run out of customers soon.

[@markstacey876]

i have enjoyed your take on elons vision for his starship and future trips to mars i know that no starship can land on mars in current form unless he sends smaller starships with legs but being the genius elon is who knows what planed fixes he has planned

[@Marc83Aus]

The design changes is driven by additional weight being added to fix deficiency in the design, the heat shield may be heavier than originally planned and other issues. In order to get the desired payload and performance the second stage needs to be extended, also after the successful orbital testing it may have been revealed that the booster had more performance than expected, allowing a greater second stage mass. However this may still be premature as a booster hasnt been recovered yet, more weight may be needed in the booster, more retained fuel for recovery etc.

[@KertaDrake]

This is just humanity at work. We have something, so lets make a bigger version, then a bigger version of that!

[@gregkelly2145]

I think we will find that governments and private companies will happily put large payloads into orbit and beyond once the price is acceptable to do so. Right now, it is simply prohibitively expensive. Starship is going to change that paradigm completely. All of a sudden, private and government space stations will become relatively affordable, where today they aren't. It's a bit like saying in the era of the Ford Model T "this is all we need, so don't work on developing a semi truck." We definitely need a space semi because it is going to enable us to do things that were simply unimaginable before.

[@djohannsson8268]

2 million is what Elon expect it to cost Space X per launch. It's probably not the total cost they end up charging the customers. I assume it will become like fed-ex by the pound and distance (trans-earth, leo, geo, moon, mars). V1, V2, V3, are just small evolutionary steps, like evolution you learn, certain branches are inefficient or impractical.

[@davidggilley2385]

He is providing internet to areas of the world that doesnt have comcast, thats alot of us too, live in the hills at all and theres no comcast

[@TheBowersj]

A bigger diameter spreads the heat evenly. Also, that bigger diameter can incorporate a thicker hull.

[@time-traveler-1961]

It's not about weight, it's about dimensions.

[@JohnboyCollins]

Sure, expendable third stage. I'm sure it will make sense for some set of missions at some point. That's not the big picture here.

[@vr4042]

In the short term, a double the size Starship would greatly increase the efficiency and decrease the cost of lunar missions. Instead of 11 Starship flights for a lunar mission you could now do it in 5 or 6. Essentially, the Super Starship will be a LEO gas station. And of course if Starlink can send up twice as many of its next design satellites in one hop, that will lower their costs. And increase the network's capacity to handle more users. (Which is one big reason SL is not as profitable as it should be)

[@matejpavelka4153]

200 tons of fuel for starship to go beyond EO is a sound plan, also a bigger fuel depot in orbit in one launch

[@RonnyWilhelmsen1001]

Angry, wish you would check out the difference between cost and price. Also, Elon went to business school - and you might have noticed as a young launch provider SpaceX seem to master the business side as well as the technical bit.

[@jastu9841]

SpaceX just proposes a larger rocket to get it into the heads of the customers to consider such a large rockets in their mission concepts. One Starship is reliably working in its current form, a development of a larger version is probably faster than the development of whatever is to be send to space by the customers. This announcement is acutally SpaceX attempt to create a future demand. They probably wont seriously start a development of a larger version before customers have an idea what to do with it.

[@idarekorval8077]

If you build it, they will come.

[@Orion2525]

The advantage of Starlink is having service where there is currently none or little. Airlines, cruise ships and the like can offer high speed internet. Areas in the countryside and foreign countries. So while it also competes in city markets, it is not reliant on just that.

[@MrRyanDevo]

Another advantage of StarLInk is that it offers high speed upload and download speeds comparable and eventually able to exceed high-speed fiber optic cable connections WITHOUT requiring any physical plant wiring/cabling to be deployed on the ground. No other satellite provider can provide such performance. And as the V2 and eventually V3 and V4 satellites are deployed, this performance and throughput will gradually increase, making StarLink the dream Internet provider - always ready no matter where you go with performance meeting or exceeding all competitors. It is breathtaking technological achievement. They have reached the Holy Grail of a LEO satellite cluster network. It will change the world.

[@WranglerRubicon76]

Keep moving forward, Elon. Don’t let the angry crowd hinder you!

[@adamweiser2515]

Personally, I think figuring out how to process asteroids is more important than Mars.

[@shaung949]

Starlink is primarily aimed at places where there is no or limited service, I'd love to see other broadband services deliver to somebody in the desert, on a boat on the ocean or the summit of a mountain. Comparing the customer base of starlink which launched it's first satellite in 2019 to a company that has been providing internet since 1995 is a rather shoddy comparison.

[@logicalfundy]

We've already seen SpaceX's plan for how they will utilize a really large payload bay: Ride shares. They do it for the Falcon 9, there's no reason they can't do it for Starship. Nobody has to make a payload large enough for the whole thing; there just needs to be enough customers to fill most of the bay on every launch. IMO this is also why SpaceX's goal is $2 million per launch: It's not really $2 million per launch total, it's $2 million per customer per launch. A single launch will likely have an order of magnitude or more revenue due to all of the ride shares. At least, that's the hope. I could be wrong, maybe the ride share market won't be as large as they expect. But I'm pretty sure that's the plan to bring the price down to what seems like an impossible level.

[@logicalfundy]

. . . and as others have pointed out, $2 million might be the launch cost, not the price they give to the customer. They will very likely charge a drastically different price based on what they think is profitable and what they can negotiate with the customer.

[@antonnym214]

ohhh! I like your third stage idea! Especially for earth-moon stuff. Well done!