zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. bunder+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 01:01:26
My guess is it’s just another example of his habit of trying to use one of his companies to manufacture demand for another of his companies’ products.

Specifically: Starship makes no economic sense. There simply isn’t any pre-existing demand for the kind of heavy lift capacity and cadence that Starship is designed to deliver. Nor is there anyone who isn’t currently launching heavy payloads to LEO but the only thing holding them back is that they need weekly launches because their use case demands a whole lot of heavy stuff in space on a tight schedule and that’s an all-or-nothing thing for them.

So nobody else has a reason to buy 50 Starship launches per year. And the planned Starlink satellites are already mostly in orbit. So what do you do? Just sell Starship to xAI, the same way he fixed Cybertruck’s demand problem by selling heaps of them to SpaceX.

replies(2): >>driveb+B1 >>weregi+Of1
2. driveb+B1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 01:12:15
>>bunder+(OP)
There might be a lot of induced demand from starship. I’m sure defense is a big one.
replies(1): >>bunder+J8
◧◩
3. bunder+J8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 02:02:25
>>driveb+B1
No, but really, where will it come from?

If (as seems to be the case) nobody can identify a specific source of latent demand that is large enough to soak up the two order of magnitude increase in the supply of heavy lift launch capacity that Elon wants to deliver, then that strongly suggests that SpaceX does not actually have a business plan for Starship. Or at least, not a business plan that’s been thought through as clearly as a $5 billion (and counting) investment would warrant.

“Defense” is not nearly specific enough to count as an answer. What kind of defense application, specifically, do you have in mind, and why does it need specifically this kind of heavy lift capacity to be viable?

4. weregi+Of1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:52:47
>>bunder+(OP)
>Specifically: Starship makes no economic sense.

Starship can replace Falcon 9 and probably be cheaper, if fully reusable, so more profitable. So at least some economic sense is there already.

replies(2): >>kibwen+Ir1 >>bunder+xM1
◧◩
5. kibwen+Ir1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 13:18:05
>>weregi+Of1
No, that's not how any of this works. Try to think for a moment why we still overwhelmingly use non-jumbo jets for aviation in a world where jumbo jets exist.
replies(1): >>bunder+vZ1
◧◩
6. bunder+xM1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 15:10:59
>>weregi+Of1
I have noticed that there are two radically different approaches to assessing Starship.

One is based on boring old analysis, hard numbers, and, worst of all, continually updating the analysis as more information (e.g., Raptor’s severe expectations vs reality shortfall) becomes available. People who use this approach don’t seem to have an opinion of Starship that is trending upward.

The other approach seems to be based on vibes, and trusting that Starship will meet its original design goals despite the fact that no rocket project has ever come close to such an achievement. If there’s ever any introspection about why Starship should be the exceptional project that actually does meet its performance goals, the conclusion tends to be something about how Starship is special because it’s being developed by a private company. And I’ve noticed that, if the conversation does get to this point, you can send it in all sorts of unpredictable and fascinating directions by saying words like “OTRAG” and “Conestoga.”

◧◩◪
7. bunder+vZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:10:16
>>kibwen+Ir1
Not to mention that making the upper stage and payload fairing much bigger and heavier juat so you can recover them is not an automatic win. You can recover it, but you’ve also made it much more expensive in the first place. And the booster needs to be bigger, heavier and more expensive, too.

It’s not an automatic deal breaker, of course. Falcon 9 is obviously a promising success. But Starship is also working with some new challenges that Falcon 9 didn’t have to worry about.

Many of these stem from design compromises that were forced by Starship’s secondary goal of being capable of a trip to Mars. In that respect, it very much resembles another major project to produce a heavy launch vehicle with a reusable combination payload fairing and upper stage that is also capable of carrying a human crew: the Space Shuttle.

[go to top]