zlacker

Starship launches are not currently any price.

The stated long run goal was $2-3m, per Elon Musk, and if you put aside practicalities like limits on how big the market is, and then not having a robust heatshield design yet, it's fundamentally coherent, because of full reuse.

If you're looking for more practical medium term numbers, Gwynne Shotwell suggested around the $50m mark would be an early price goal.

>>Veedra+(OP)
The stated goal of Tesla was self-driving, per Elon Musk. Him throwing up some number, deadline or idea he pulled out of his head doesn't convince me it is likely or even feasible.

>>atoav+H
I'm not claiming $5m launch will happen. I claimed it could happen. It is in fact a coherent possibility. Heck, self-driving also, I took a Waymo just a few days ago. There's a big difference between doubting a specific company can do a thing and doubting the thing is plausible in principle.

>>Veedra+O1
Then we are on the same page here. The question in this case is if the math is mathing. Launch cost is one thing, but just judging by the pdf they fail to adequately address the fact that they will be the first people trying to build a sattelite that is required to dissipate heat by that amount into space.

Don't get me wrong, maybe space datacenters can be more efficient after decades of RND and maybe that RND is even worth it, but if you are the company who wants to convince me to give you money to reach that job you should not go like "cooling in space is free", because there is no such thing as free lunch in space engineering.

>>atoav+a5
> you should not go like "cooling in space is free",

It is baffling me how much I'm defending this proposal because I don't actually think it's a sensible company but they really really do not do this.

>>Veedra+b8
Not sure what brought me onto that track here, I just skimmed into it and was really baited by that first table comparing water costs to nothing.

The rest of the paper is a bit more sensible.