• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Yes but remember there is not currently much that needs that large of a rocket, and you get diminishing returns on rideshare. Major satellites are still likely to need private launches and there’s no point in buying a bigger launching you need.

    Large rockets are currently needed

    • for space stations - a handful of times total
    • manned missions to moon/mars, a few times
    • a constellation like Starlink can take more advantage of rideshare

    Current space economy has a use for maybe half a dozen launches per year. All that money developing re-use, building multiple launches per sites, a lot of the basic technology, is a waste, if that’s all we need.

    Making back that excessive development cost, achieving that low launch price, entirely depends on there being sufficient market to launch many times per year. It’ll be revolutionary for sure, but only if

    They’ve designed and built for scale, which will be amazing when it happens, but only if we scale dramatically.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I hear you that such a large rocket is not “needed” very often, but it can still be used. I believe the plan is to ramp down falcon 9 production and go to starship launches for everything, even smaller payloads, simply because it’s cheaper and more sustainable. As long as they launch regularly, the price should still be lower than falcon 9. And at least on paper, it is more sustainable, burning methane results in cleaner exhaust than burning kerosene, the only major exhaust products are CO2 and water. And not letting an upper stage burn up or fall into the ocean is an ecological plus too.