Viper_63 t1_iv2bk6p wrote on November 4, 2022 at 7:15 PM

Reply to comment by TheLianeonProject in The promise and perils of the new space boom by Gari_305

>The cost per kilogram to orbit has fallen from about $10,000 in 2000, to roughly $2000 today

Highly misleading, you might want to check the actual launch costs, not the aspirational future costs that the article false claims as fact.

See for example

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/spacex-raises-prices-for-launches-and-starlink-due-to-inflation.html

A Falcon 9 launch costs ~$67 million and can carry ~17 tons to orbit when the rocket is not expended.

That adds up to about $4000 per kg. If you just need to launch small payloads the costs are even higher:

>The company also adjusted its prices for its small satellite rideshare program. Those flights will now start at $1.1 million to fly a payload weighing 200 kilograms to a sun-synchronous orbit, up from a base price of $1 million. SpaceX increased the cost of additional payload mass by 10% as well and will now charge $5,500 per extra kilogram, up from a previous $5,000 per kilogram.

The costs of spaceflight will not continue to fall much further with conventional chemical rockets, regardless of the idiotic numbers that Musk or SpaceX dream up. Reaching tripple or double digit numbers per kg would require straight-up slave labor and free fuel&propellant.

>There is so much potential, from tourism to advertising, to research and development/manufacturing of products that can only be done in micro-gravity, to eventually resource mining...

No, there isn't, for the simple reason that doing any of this in space is going to be more costly and complicated than doing it on earth. But all of these are ways to defraud investors.

How is "space" even remotely comparable to Moore's law or digital computing and why does Moore's law "slowing down" mean anything in this regard? "Moore's law" is just an observation of trends in transistor density.

TheLianeonProject t1_iv2nevr wrote on November 4, 2022 at 8:34 PM

>A Falcon 9 launch costs ~$67 million and can carry ~17 tons to orbit when the rocket is not expended.

This figure is wrong. It's closed to 22 tons expended. 15 tons or more reusable.

Further, you're basing your figures on the list price in an industry with little competition. SpaceX doesn't need to cut prices as much as they can because no one can compete on price anyway.

We know roughly how much the stages of the rocket cost, and the cost of refurbishment. If anything, my numbers are conservative.

>No, there isn't, for the simple reason that doing any of this in space is going to be more costly and complicated than doing it on earth. But all of these are ways to defraud investors.

That's the spirit! If we followed that logic, The United States wouldn't exist.

Viper_63 t1_iv2yf78 wrote on November 4, 2022 at 9:52 PM

>This figure is wrong. It's closed to 22 tons expended.

I didn't give data for expended, and not expended is 16.7 t to LEO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

FT: 22.8 t (50,000 lb)[1] Expended
16.7 t (37,000 lb)[6] when landing on ASDS

Note also that the "price" given on the SpaceX PR material is for non-expended launches, while the "performance" to LEO/GTO is for expendable launches. The $67 million are for 17.6 t to LEO / 5.5 to GTO. What are you criticizing here? BTW, let me know if you have an actual valid source for prices for FT launches, I was unable to find any.

>Further, you're basing your figures on the list price in an industry with little competition. SpaceX doesn't need to cut prices as much as they can because no one can compete on price anyway.

Yet you're basing your claims on an article that only argues based on (inaccurate) prices given by SpaceX. If you have valid sources regarding the actual production, support and launch costs, by all means let's hear them.

>We know roughly how much the stages of the rocket cost, and the cost of refurbishment. If anything, my numbers are conservative.

"Roughly", the same way the article makes inaccurate and false claims based on "rough calculations" and aspirational launch costs?

I honestly doubt that you have any knowledge regarding the actual costs, apart from speculations based on twitter posts and PR-BS. Remind me again when Starship was supposed to be launching people to that CGI Mars colony. Again, if you have actual valid sources, by all means let's hear them.

>That's the spirit! If we followed that logic, The United States wouldn't exist.

Lol, faulty logic. Maybe look up who founded Columbus' ships&trips and for what reason. I don't know why people are still so delusional to compare spaceflight to naval exploration. As far as I can tell it has been pointed out to oblivion why that is gigantic fallacy based on ignorance with a nice sprinkling of dunning-kruger.

There is no reason and no feasible way - and there won't be using purely chemical rockets - to build up a "space mining industry or a space manufacturing industry". Because it's order of magnitudes more costly to do any of this in space than to do it on earth.

Neither is any form of actual "space tourism" realistic apart from ferrying obscenly rich people to small existing stations. The whole notion of "space hotels" is so utterly stupid that I'm have trouble comprehending that people would actually fall for these grifters, apart from a basic lack of knowledge regarding the compelxity of orbital operations. Space tourism isn't simply "like cruise ships, but in space".

You can't just add "space" to stuff and pretend that that's going to be the next big thing because "Space" and Daddy Elon whispering sweets nothings into your ear. If you actually do the math and look at the feasibility you'll notice that not only do none of these space mining and tourism visions to defraud investors add up. You'll also note that instead of funding those Mars colonies, Starlink is literally burning money and desperate for investors.

And again, what does Moore's law have to do with any of this?

TheLianeonProject t1_iv5bdrx wrote on November 5, 2022 at 12:45 PM

>You can't just add "space" to stuff and pretend that that's going to be the next big thing because "Space" and Daddy Elon whispering sweets nothings into your ear. If you actually do the math and look at the feasibility you'll notice that not only do none of these space mining and tourism visions to defraud investors add up.

I'm not going to engage with this. This right here establishes that you have made up your mind. You have decided that SpaceX/Elon Musk is lying and that the whole industry is out to grift us. There is no point to spinning my wheels and sifting through my sources when your just going to disregard them anyway. I don't have time for it.

Agree to disagree. Have a great day

Viper_63 t1_iv5kmom wrote on November 5, 2022 at 2:06 PM

>I'm not going to engage with this.

Nor are you going to engage your other fallacies I take it? Like the actual costs? Or your inane comparison of space exploration with naval travel? Or how Moore's laws is supposed to factor into this at all?

You're simply salty because I'm calling you out on your nonsensical claims.

>that SpaceX/Elon Musk is lying and that the whole industry is out to grift us

How is any of this up to debate, given their claims regarding Starship, Mars colonies, Starlink paying for all of this? "The whole industry" you are imagining here doesn't exist as far "Space [Tourism/Mining/Manufacturing]" is concerned, and those CGI space hotels have been debunked numerous times as attempts to defraud investors becasue they are not feasible on basically every level. This is hardly the first time this has been pointed out on this subreddit.

My man, if you can't back up your claims you have no arguments.