[HN Gopher] Why SpaceX Is at Risk of Bankruptcy Part 1
___________________________________________________________________
Why SpaceX Is at Risk of Bankruptcy Part 1
Author : sethbannon
Score : 23 points
Date : 2022-10-01 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| twoodfin wrote:
| This article doesn't attempt to explain why the growing reach and
| capacity of terrestrial wireless networks won't swallow up the
| lion's share of this "trillion dollar market".
|
| I'm sure folks with hunting cabins in the Maine wilderness are
| thrilled that Elon is burning investor dollars to bring them
| broadband Internet at $100/month, but doesn't that market tap out
| pretty quickly?
| qualudeheart wrote:
| The government will give them money if they need it. American
| administrations since the Obama admin have pivoted to compete
| with China. As with the space race against the Soviets, the
| United States is in a space race with China to mars. SpaceX is
| the tip of the spear.
|
| Musk has the wherewithal to manufacture the Falcon 9 without
| government funds. With them his victory is guaranted.
|
| To the extent that the SpaceX business model is about selling
| rockets and not about selling other products, the government is
| an excellent customer. SpaceX can also offer the service of
| getting payloads to orbit.
| tuatoru wrote:
| The military applications alone of something like Super
| Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going.
|
| Now it's possible, it has to be done.
|
| > To the extent that the SpaceX business model is about selling
| rockets and not about selling other products
|
| SpaceX's business is selling launches to orbit. Its great
| achievement to date is changing the expensive first stage from
| being a consumable (used up at the time) to being a fixed asset
| (a machine) used for launches.
| _hypx wrote:
| So basically "more war" is the killer feature. Some see this
| as a total failure.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Would you prefer living in the Chinese system?
| qualudeheart wrote:
| The "killer feature" is kick starting an aerospace
| revolution, no matter if that's civilian or not.
|
| The "killer feature" is kick starting an aerospace
| revolution, no matter if that's civilian or not.
|
| If you're in an aerospace career, you know that the
| commercial aviation industry has been in a steep decline.
|
| The "air" part is struggling, but imagine the applications
| coming from the "space" part. Just manufacturing in space
| is a massive opportunity.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > The military applications alone of something like Super
| Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going.
|
| I'm a pretty big SpaceX fan, but what exactly are these
| applications? Point to point? Ability to launch bigger
| payloads for the NRO?
| Nomentatus wrote:
| I'm thinking point to point. What else can do the job now?
| Look at the ukraine war. Smart weapons such as antitank and
| GPS-guided munitions rule, there. But aircraft aren't
| delivering them - antiair, including lasers are too good
| now. Even drones aren't surviving that long. Artillery
| launched smart weapons are scanty and expensive, the
| acceleration is just too rude. A quick reusable launch
| platform that's only up where it can be hit briefly but
| extends the range of a cluster of anti-tank missiles by
| several times is obviously useful. Maybe the main future
| delivery platform. HiMars is a weak and too-expensive
| version of this; but it's rockets too.
| consumer451 wrote:
| The problem with deploying Starship to a war zone is that
| it looks exactly like a ballistics missile on radar,
| since it is in-fact, a ballistic missile.
|
| This could somewhat understandably result in a nuclear
| exchange.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| I don't think that starship would survive in a hostile
| airspace longer than average drone. Starship is not fast,
| it has huge radar reflection surface and it has very hot
| engine. It will get shot down by basically any SAM or
| MANPAD made in last 50 years.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Point to point, 100 tons, anywhere on the globe in six
| hours--repeat as required; orbital kinetic energy weapons
| (500 kg tungsten rods) in the tens or hundreds of
| thousands; orbital satellite killers in the tens of
| thousands; directed energy weapons as alternatives to
| ICBMs. (Yes, Reagan's "Star Wars".)
|
| Those just off the top of my head. I'm sure military
| analyst types could come up with more.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| How would you get forklift into Starship so it can unload
| cargo from it?
| consumer451 wrote:
| Well, the lunar version includes a built-in crane. So
| that could work, problem is that in this configuration
| the starship does not leave the landing zone, ever.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > point to point
|
| The devil is in the details. The Starship stack requires
| major ground infrastructure on both ends unless it's one-
| time use. See: mechazilla.
|
| So it's anywhere on earth where you've had a couple years
| to build the "stage zero" infrastructure which includes a
| giant propellant tank farm, and the logistics to fill
| said tanks.
|
| Regarding other theoretical applications, the only one
| that is not truly sci-fi is the ability to launch
| Starlink size swarms. But use of kinetic anti-space asset
| weapons are also likely the end of space access. It's a
| very fragile theater up there.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Not a military guy but I assume the ability to launch much
| more into orbit would enable the military to "flood the
| zone" so to speak. Just fill orbit with so many military
| satellites and weapons that space superiority is
| essentially guaranteed.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Yeah, this is probably the best argument even though it's
| not very specific.
|
| The only issue is that already, launch is not the largest
| cost component of space assets, it's the assets
| themselves.
|
| Say Starship could launch 5 NRO assets at once, could we
| afford to build them?
| bwestergard wrote:
| I would hope that public servants wait for bankruptcy so they
| are able to purchase the company at a favorable price before
| folding it into NASA.
| m463 wrote:
| I suspect they wouldn't get the secret sauce (which is that
| spacex is not nasa).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-01 23:01 UTC)