Most rockets flew test flights before sticking people inside the same model, but most rockets are also single use and so each stack is fundamentally new.
A future starship could plausibly be the first rocket to fly to space unmanned, return, and then fly humans to space!
Imagine you're an ISP. If your customer has slow bandwidth to some random website, they will blame the website. If they have a slow connection to YouTube, they will blame you.
So YouTube gets more favorable terms on transit bandwidth than the random site does.
General aviation stats might not be entirely applicable to commercial aviation, of course. The planes are less redundant, less well maintained, and flown by less experienced crew - it's hard to tell which of those factors will tend to dominate, or whether they cancel out.
You only need to be moving ~7.5-8km/s, but getting to orbit tends to take 9.5-10km/s of total delta-v due to needing to ascend, aerodynamic drag, and other losses.
Don't forget the Cornfield Bomber! The pilot ejected from this F-106 (a single-seat, single-engine all-weather interceptor) after passing through 15,000 feet in a flat spin - and the plane promptly exited the flat spin and proceeded to a soft landing in a farmer's field.
And it was truly a soft landing - the plane's engine was still running after coming to a stop, and the aircraft was returned to service!
>It's not even that. You can host third-party speech without Section 230, you just also gain liability from moderating that content.
And if you don't moderate, your site turns into a cesspit of spam, illegal and disgusting stuff. Like the chans/kuns. Although even those sites are moderated to remove illegal stuff like CSAM.
So no. Not moderating isn't really a viable option if you want folks to actually post relevant/reasonable third-party content on your internet property.
I tell you what. Go ahead and implement a Pixelfed or Mastodon (or Lemmy or whatever) instance and open it up for anyone to sign up and use. Then don't moderate it in any way and see what becomes of it.
Assuming you aren't arrested for hosting CSAM, you'll likely find that your site is filled with spam and offensive garbage. So much so that the normal folks won't want to use it.
> Please explain to me how lower launch costs will help weather prediction.
Cheaper launch means more weather satellites covering more spectrum from more angles than otherwise.
> What is this special low cost rocket sauce that enables it?
Everything is dependent on cost. If we had a medicine that gave an extra 10 years of healthy life to everyone but cost $100,000,000 per person, it would be utterly infeasible to give to the masses. If it cost $100,000 - now that's an easy decision.
If something is cheap you can do more of it.
> I am trying to imagine how building reusable rockets leads to improving GPS
GPS satellites are incredibly expensive because they need to be light enough to fit in existing heavy lift launchers and reliable enough to last for 20+ years. Cheaper, heavier, more frequent launch means you can dramatically reduce the cost per satellite in a constellation, and thus send up more. Having more GPS satellites reduces time to first fix, improves coverage in adverse environments (cities in particular) and improves accuracy.
Weather prediction isn't just about "should I have a picnic today". Accurate weater information is important for innumerable economic activites, from farming to shipping to contruction to power generation planning. Providing better forecasts would allow us to save lives and money in these industries and this will reduce the costs you pay for goods. It might even save the life of someone you love.
There are 3 new GPS satellites being launched by the US in 2025. Satellites do regularly need to be replaced; fuel runs out, batteries die or there os damage or failure. We also are developing newer and better satellites.
Satellite based internet is currently going through a revolution that is bringing internet access and economic opportunity to isolated small communities all over the world. This is a great example of new deployment that simply wasn't economically feasible with pre-SpaceX launch prices. This technology has so many potential positive impacts that it alone should justify reusable rockets. This is another application that could save the life of someone you love (better acess to emergency services in remote locations or deadzones).
Another incredibly valuable satellite industry is satelite based imaging. Timely, high precision satellite imagery is currently very expensive. Significant drops in the price would enable a unimaginable plethora of usec ases. Better wildfire monitoring, more efficient farming and ranching, search and rescue, etc.
On top of all this, starship development is actually comparatively cheap compared to how valuable space is. Losing GPS would cost the US alone 1 billion dollars a day which is why the US is planning on spending 2 billion building a backup. Starship RnD costs are estimated to somewhere near 10 billion total spread out over a decade or two.
For further comparison, I'll also note that the 2024 US presidential election cost us more 50% more than that. The entire space industry is worth about as much as the entire semiconductors industry (~600 billion) and McKinsie estimated that to triple in the next 10 years.
Finally, I'll say that what I've listed is the merest drop in the bucket compared to the uses we haven't figured out yet because space launch was so expensive.
An second order of magnitude drop in launch costs on top of the ond SpaceX has already delivered would be a big boost the the global economy in many ways, including some that are hard to predict on advance. If SpaceX can deliver a third order of magnitude drop beyond that (which has been claimed as possible with Starship) then the results would be staggering, completely transforming how we view and use space economically and enabling completely new types of space exploration missions.
The biggest problem right now is that nobody else is keeping up with SpaceX. We need more companies doing the same thing SpaceX is.
Yeah but we can already launch rockets. Everything else you’re telling me is not application of it but promises that something will come from it. But not listing anything valuable to my average earth dweller life doesn’t tell me that anything beneficial will come from it. No matter how many times someone insists that “yes there will be many advancements obviously, we just need cheaper rockets to tell you what they are first”.
You have to acknowledge that we could also spend a bunch of money and time doing this to no benefit at all for the average earth dweller.
I like the positive attitudes about it but the whole “this’ll be good in the long run, you’ll see” talk is just talk.
It was beneficial previously when we had 0 rockets and 0 sattelites, that was easy to see. Now that we have it, it’s just an R&D playground for the rich and those willing to invest in the dellusion.
No I got answers. As I’ve been saying before, to which YOU don’t want to listen to my perspective. None of what you list would be halted or forfeited by the discontinuation of Starship. None of what you list would affect my personal day to day.
It is very clear YOU don’t want to consider any other perspective than “of course everything is perfect and good from Starship”.
I will gladly eat my words when it is proven otherwise.
> None of what you list would affect my personal day to day.
You've made up your mind so I'm not going to convince you. I'm only trying to debunk that for the sake of other readers.
More precise, more timely weather forecast will definitely affect your day. Better crop, more efficient cargo transport definitely have the potential to improve your life, your health, and lower your cost of living.
Starlink V2 is capable of gigabit internet, and it can only be launched on Starship. That can potentially affect your quality of life.
Starlink cell services can potentially save your life, if you're stranded on Everest. Maybe that isn't your game, but still.
Next time, when consider what may affect your life, think a bit deeper. The world is a lot more than just you.
You've made up your mind so I'm not going to convince you. I'm only trying to debunk that for the sake of other readers.
Starship is not a new piece of tech, perhaps it’s refined tech but we were building rockets before. So the continued insinuation that we can only improve weather and gps via Starship is absolute snake oil.
Starlink also isn’t new tech, it’s just Musk’s flavor.
Yes thinking deeper and asking questions then asking how the answers can possibly be true will really affect my life. As evidenced by this thread where Starship enthusiasts are getting irritated and talking down to me. How’s the advanced weather prediction up their on your high horse?
I think they can probably do both at once - heatshield testing and pez dispenser testing shouldn't interfere with each other, so might as well use whatever spare upmass you have!
Yeah you might lose the payload, but SpaceX has the cheapest satellites in the business from what I understand.
There have been quite a few demos over the years where voting machines are hacked. Now, this does not mean that they were hacked, for real, in a real election.
It does mean that it is possible to do, and in ways that paper ballots are not.
A future starship could plausibly be the first rocket to fly to space unmanned, return, and then fly humans to space!
reply