Thread has fallen down the list too far.

Starlink Falcon 9 launch tomorrow at 3:00

Just some interesting stats for global Q1 launches.

FCC filings made by #SpaceX for the #USSF52 mission confirm that the #FalconHeavy side boosters will be recovered via dual RTLS landings, with the center core being expended.

The mission is due to launch from historic LC-39A NET July 7.https://t.co/v1XOhyR2fE pic.twitter.com/KuEBtdmf5c

— Tyler Gray 🚀 (@TylerG1998) May 10, 2023

Always a 'blast' to see the side boosters return to the launch site for landing, NET July 7 for anyone thinking about a trip down to the cape.

It's truly incredible seeing the dual RTLS, highly recommend going!

If / when SpaceX starts doing missions to Mars, do they have a monetization strategy? I get that it is bigger than being about the money, but seems like it will be extremely expensive to just be a straight money drain.

If Starship proves to be fully rapidly reusable, SpaceX will never have to worry about money again and will probably just self-fund those missions with NASA assistance for things like habitation.

Mr President Elect said:

---

If / when SpaceX starts doing missions to Mars, do they have a monetization strategy? I get that it is bigger than being about the money, but seems like it will be extremely expensive to just be a straight money drain.

---

If the upside of the initial investment is that you get a planet, how much would you be willing to invest assuming you have the money? And being 1-2 generations beyond any other launch provider in the world, they will have the money.

I'm curious if they are going to get into asteroid mining and using the moon as the base launch site?

Yeah, I get all that. I just keep forgetting that the initial go to Mars plan (maybe outside of a test or two) is to do so with about 1000 starships during optimal orbits, that is going to be extremely expensive

Mr President Elect said:

---

Yeah, I get all that. I just keep forgetting that the initial go to Mars plan (maybe outside of a test or two) is to do so with about 1000 starships during optimal orbits, that is going to be extremely expensive

---

As the cost of production comes down (which is one of Elon Musk's superpowers) it will become doable. I haven't seen any numbers on what they project it will cost to build a Starship/Booster, but their targeting about $2 million per launch. A thousand launches would "only" be a $billion.

Mr President Elect said:

---

If / when SpaceX starts doing missions to Mars, do they have a monetization strategy? I get that it is bigger than being about the money, but seems like it will be extremely expensive to just be a straight money drain.

---

This is why Starlink exists.

If Starlink can achieve 100m global customers at ~$100/mo, that equates to $120B in annual revenue. That is basically 5x NASA's annual budget.

lb3 said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

If / when SpaceX starts doing missions to Mars, do they have a monetization strategy? I get that it is bigger than being about the money, but seems like it will be extremely expensive to just be a straight money drain.

---

This is why Starlink exists.

If Starlink can achieve 100m global customers at ~$100/mo, that equates to $120B in annual revenue. That is basically 5x NASA's annual budget.

---

I get that about starlink, but at the same time it is like whoa we made this very profitable company, now let's blow it all going to Mars with no return (not really saying that is the case, but that is the discussion).

ETA: Since the growth of SpaceX will be limited to the funds they have, it would be a lot more beneficial if they find ways to monetize these trips instead of it being on a fixed Starlink and rideshare profits budget.

Somehow I don't thing they will be giving rides to Mars for free.

The initial venture to Mars was going to be pretty low ROI no matter who it was.

The rest of SpaceX gives Musk the capital to try. If Mars works out and is anyway scalable for either research or eventually habitation it would be a huge windfall.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

It's truly incredible seeing the dual RTLS, highly recommend going!

---

I've only seen single landings out here at the AFWTR but can concur, it's a really cool experience, to include the accompanying sonic booms.

Mr President Elect said:

---

If / when SpaceX starts doing missions to Mars, do they have a monetization strategy? I get that it is bigger than being about the money, but seems like it will be extremely expensive to just be a straight money drain.

---

I think the eventual monetization will be in orbital or lunar manufacturing. They both offer benefits that can't be found on earth, chief amongst them the lack of atmosphere. The vacuum opens up manufacturing possibilities that don't exist here because things can't immediately oxidize. Second, there's plenty of sunlight, so put up enough solar panels and you have an excellent source of power for an orbital factory. Third, fluid suspensions work differently in 0g. Things suspended in a fluid stay in a fluid instead of settling to the bottom. Honestly, I have no idea what happens to diffused gases in a liquid in a vacuum in space. Thinking of scuba diving, I would think they would expand in a pressureless vacuum, but they would remain under a uniform pressure within the liquid. They can't bubble up because there is no up, so I guess there would just be bubbles suspended within the liquid?

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Thread has fallen down the list too far.

Starlink Falcon 9 launch tomorrow at 3:00

---

Just watched it from the roof at work. Nice clear day, watching rockets never gets old.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

The initial venture to Mars was going to be pretty low ROI no matter who it was.

The rest of SpaceX gives Musk the capital to try. If Mars works out and is anyway scalable for either research or eventually habitation it would be a huge windfall.

---

The analogy I've seen draws to things like the Dutch East Indies/British overseas trading companies.

http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/623127/5489366/111-381503be1c5764e533d2e1e923e21477_HeldmannJenniferL.pdf

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex

It's capital intensive, no doubt, but there are financial payoffs for the folks who wind up controlling/monetizing it if it works out.

Lots of good updates on Starship, China, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab.



Crazy how fast SpaceX turns things around compared not just to NASA, but Blue Origin, China and everyone else out there. Just a constant case study on efficiency and working many things in parallel. They do everything they can to prevent work stoppages due to serial processing, including working with / thru government regulations.

Virgin Orbit still trying to launch another rocket despite their bankruptcy. The sale of the company should be completed by the end of the month according to the accelerated bankruptcy schedule.

You have to wonder how strong is the financial position of the other rocket startups that don't have a proven record. Relativity, ABL, etc… and any hope of revenue for Relatively is still years away since they abandoned their small rocket.

Virgin Orbit was married up conceptually to a pre-Falcon 9 cost structure market outlook for small satellites (to LEO) using a disposable rocket (well, and a huge 747 that flies a few times a year). It's a dead end project, really.

Relativity has had no problem raising cash and put their valuation around $4.3 billion a couple years ago in the most recent round.

You are right though, not all of the startups are well capitalized/funded. Relativity and Rocket Lab I would put in the 'they can go get cash from private equity/IPO whenever they want' category (as with SpaceX) though for now.

The next domino in 'shaking out' the launch provider market is probably whatever happens with ULA (Boeing/LM) being sold, and then probably some changes/shifts in Europe (Rocketlab Augsburg, Arianespace etc.), then we will see a trickle on effect among "American" launch providers circa 2024-2025 (subject to Starship actually doing…close to what it's goals are in reusability/costs).

I also think the Russian cadence is going to…well just drop to next to zero. In some sense that is sad but not really, and in the totalitarian/communist realm the Chinese seem determined to throw cash at their programs.

Looks like the ispace lander failure involved a miscalculation of altitude, a sensor failure, and/or software failure. Seems like the lander thought it had landed very softly or super close and the propulsion system kept firing in a "hover" state at 100m until the IMU sensed touch-town. Well, it never touched down, prop ran out, and the lander dropped from 100m to the lunar surface.

Sucks because all of that should have been detected with a detailed FMEA and sims that evaluate said FMEA. This would allow for more fault tolerance in the code, real-time sensor health checks, back-up "open loop" GN&C schemes, and many other options to prevent this.

Their stock dropped 50% after the crash, which also sucks.

Quote:

---

"It was doing what it should have done, which is descending vertically with its engines keeping it to the low velocity," says Lionel Wilson, a geophysicist at Lancaster University, UK. But for the last few hundred metres, "it was in freefall", he adds. "It just dropped like a stone."

"In the final touch down phase the telemetry showed that it was at zero altitude ... the lander thought it was on the lunar surface, but in reality it wasn't," says Ryo Ujiie, ispace's chief technology officer. "The lander kept descending and then it ran out of propellant. After that, we observed some really unstable behaviour and an increase in velocity."

"We are still investigating what caused the gap between the estimated altitude and the actual altitude. This was the main cause of the freefall," Ujiie adds. "We had a sensor that measured the distance between the lander and the ground. That measurement might have been wrong. The software might have been wrong. We still don't know."

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01441-y

Vast has announced a standalone station core launch on falcon 9.

Still awed by the power of the Saturn V

Quote:

---

I edited this a few years ago when I worked as a NASA Videographer. We, at the Marshall Space Flight Center, spent years converting the original 16mm, 35mm and 70mm films to digital. As a side project, I decided to make the ultimate Saturn V launch and I spent weeks picking the best shots. I know it launches slower than in real life but I wanted you all to be able to lovingly relish each amazing angle. After it was done, I sent it to a friend of mine in Hollywood who is a re-recording audio engineer who has worked on almost 150 films and he added the awesome audio to the silent original films. I am thrilled you all like it as much as I do!

---

I think we all might've guessed there would be a further iteration of Raptor into a "V3" but the space station is pretty shocking to me.

Next launch is going to be crazy. #SpaceX pic.twitter.com/rtcGcLLKmB https://t.co/vR4NpiaMDD

— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) May 13, 2023

Raptor chamber wall might have the highest heat flux of anything ever made

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2023

Some posts were made earlier to try and show the size of Starship. I took another stab at it. This is the Starship near the local High School

I cannot make any sense of the scale without the EPCOT ball and monorail.

fka ftc said:

---

I cannot make any sense of the scale without the EPCOT ball and monorail.

---

lol sorry

It is a cool video.

The technological achievement to make something so big fly… controllably is mind-boggling.

Just speculation on my part.
Virgin Orbit was spending like drunken sailors without much cost controls. They also failed to implement efficiency improvements to increase launch cadence. There were inherent extra costs in their launch architecture but if they could have reduced the price and increased cadence they may have found a niche market.

Relativity's valuation declined last year. And my guess is it will decline further and the company will have to downsize. They have a lot of sunk costs they need to now get things under control. They're abandoning their 3D printing of tanks for more traditional manufacturing methods. They have over 1,000 employees and are probably spending over 120 million a year easily. So they need to cut some fat or do more fundraising without any real justification for increased valuation. Terran R launch in 2026… probably becomes 2027. They'll need 400+ million to get there. They claim over 1.6 Billion in launch contracts, so they probably find the money to get to a Terran R launch. But I think there is a ton of uncertainty, they can still end up bankrupt like Virgin Orbit if they don't get costs under control.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fidelity-slashes-relativity-spaces-valuation-startups-spacex

I have to congratulate the SpaceX team in 350 bar chamber pressure, what an achievement!

You are probably right. Relativity has a lot of contacts/relationships through the VC world though. I don't think they will be allowed to 'fail' before 2030.

I am waiting though for the commentariat to explain/extrapolate/speculate what this might mean for various possible permutations of Starship/super heavy.

Primarily (to me), they've said/confirmed an intent to stretch the upper stage (haven't confirmed how much to add fuel vs. cargo), and it was already borderline capable of orbit with no payload so I am really pretty curious if a 'basic' single stage to orbit configuration could be created (perhaps even a manned version to LEO).

That would, I would think, save some of the risks/complications in that spin to stage separation maneuver etc. But ISP/calculations on all of that stuff are beyond my humble abilities.

nortex97 said:

---

You are probably right. Relativity has a lot of contacts/relationships through the VC world though. I don't think they will be allowed to 'fail' before 2030.

I am waiting though for the commentariat to explain/extrapolate/speculate what this might mean for various possible permutations of Starship/super heavy.

Primarily (to me), they've said/confirmed an intent to stretch the upper stage (haven't confirmed how much to add fuel vs. cargo), and it was already borderline capable of orbit with no payload so I am really pretty curious if a 'basic' single stage to orbit configuration could be created (perhaps even a manned version to LEO).

That would, I would think, save some of the risks/complications in that spin to stage separation maneuver etc. But ISP/calculations on all of that stuff are beyond my humble abilities.

---

Lol, the reason they must perform a "spin to stage separation" maneuver…? Because Elon thoughtlessly axed the hot gas thrusters because of a YouTuber.

bmks270 said:

---

Lol, the reason they must perform a "spin to stage separation" maneuver…? Because Elon thoughtlessly axed the hot gas thrusters because of a YouTuber.

---

He may be bizarre and a bit on the spectrum, but he's not shown a tendency to "thoughtlessly" take a piss, much less make changes to a rocket ship because of a rando on YouTube if thats the insensuation.