Lifting off from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station… The post SpaceX to surpass 4,000 Starlink satellites on-orbit with Starlink Group 5-6 appeared first on NASASpaceFlight.com.
@ErinAnne So not for regular moves, but for LEO -> GEO or even GTO->GEO moves. That seems like the value add.
Of course tugs made much more sense where electric propulsion, being more efficient but slow, could be used to do the big orbital moves more efficiently, and make your satellite much smaller meaning cheaper launcher. When launches are as cheap as SpaceX it makes less sense. Oh well.
@TheMatrixEquation-balance on a single launch, Starship is expected to do either 150 tons to LEO or only 21 to GTO. Without orbital refueling, it’s a bit heavy to get all that much past LEO, actually.
@fyrepenguin - I think the idea of Super Heavy is really revolutionary and will be around for some time. I am not so sure about Starship. It is good proof of concept for the reusable second stage. But how practical it will be for LEO market/tasks, I am not sure. They might come up with something more nimble and flexible (modular). But nobody knows for sure.
@TheMatrixEquation-balance I would argue that at 1/5 the cost and 5x the payload capacity to LEO as compared to Falcon 9, a lot. Even if it costs the same as a Falcon 9, then there’s basically no reason for anyone to book a ride of a Falcon 9 vs a Starship, and very little reason for SpaceX to keep operating it.
I reckon it’ll end up simile to how the Falcon 9 did - high launch cadence of internal payloads, with the ability to slot in customer payloads into the manifest more or less at-will. SpaceX has that capability for Falcon 9 right now due to their insane launch cadence, but once they move their Starlink launches over to Starship that cadence will drop like a rock (for Falcon 9, at least).
@fyrepenguin - I just have a simple question. Would Starlink fairing containing the same number of devices but without fuel tanks, raptor engines and 20-tons of fuel (for landing) be more economical for launch than reusable Starship? Super Heavy with one Raptor engine stage-2 could take this fairing all the way to LEO.
@TheMatrixEquation-balance “ Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy fairings — they're the same for both rockets — cost about $6 million apiece, Musk has said”. So, I’m not sure about that one way or another
Depending on what their refurbishment costs, if any, are, it could be a tight race. Add to that the benefits of maintaining a single configuration for simplicity … since there’s also overhead in terms of having the factory to actually make the fairings, and infrastructure related to flying them
@fyrepenguin - not sure why fairing should cost as much as Starship (without engines). But I don't agree with the "single configuration". The Starship is unique. It was designed for the Moon and Mars landings. It would be hard to consider it a standard platform for normal LEO deliveries.
United Kingdom (UK) based spaceflight company Orbex has begun construction at the Sutherland Spaceport in… The post Orbex breaks ground on Sutherland Spaceport as UK prepares to enter domestic launch market appeared first on NASASpaceFlight.com.
@TheMatrixEquation-balance because the Starship launch cost is expected to be more or less the cost of the fuel, rather than the fairing which is not cheap to manufacture.
Starship, without refueling, is primarily a LEO system. Take a look at its throw weight to LEO vs GTO - Falcon Heavy can only put half to a third as much to LEO, but can put 30% more into GTO when operating in expendable mode. The math significantly changes when you start refueling Starship, but when operating reusable for single launches, Starship can do bulk-to-LEO that nothing can match but struggles beyond it.
