11
$\begingroup$

SpaceX and NASA are investing a stunning pile of resources in developing Starship, the heaviest of heavy lift launchers; despite the small market for heavy launchers and the significant advantages of small satellites.

SpaceX’s justification for developing Starship is colonization of Mars although this looks like “painting the target around the arrow”.

If Mars colonization falls through, what economically viable uses are there for Starship? Is there a market for point-to-point Earth transport? Is there demand for a mass-produced super heavy lifter? Are there plans for a project on the scale of the ISS? Orbital refueling delivery truck? Military uses?

Or does Starship risk becoming the "Cybertruck of the Heavens"?

“We dug our own grave with the Cybertruck” - Musk

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Theoretically, a fully reusable Starship launch is supposed to be cheaper than a Falcon 9 launch. So Starship could end up taking over all the launches that are currently being handled by Falcon 9, even though it is overpowered. (In much the same way, IXPE, designed for the small Pegasus launcher, was ultimately launched on a Falcon 9 because the latter was cheaper even though the launcher was oversized and overpowered for this purpose.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I highly recommend watching Isaac Arthur video on kickstarting the aerospace industry where he talks about different potential markets in space m.youtube.com/… $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 16:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the premise of this question is problematic: SpaceX exists for one reason, and one reason only – to make humanity a multi-planetary species. Everything else they do, is to raise money and to develop knowledge and expertise required to reach that goal. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 18:52
  • 29
    $\begingroup$ @JörgWMittag That's what Musk has said in the past, but it turns out that not everything Musk says is true. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 19:57
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ @JörgWMittag ... "SpaceX exists for one reason, and one reason only – to make humanity a multi-planetary species" This is clearly the marketing line Elon projects. But Elon plays loose with the truth often enough to qualify as the running mate of his favorite presidential candidate. The truth (or not) of this statement has nothing to do with answering the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented Sep 4 at 0:58

6 Answers 6

17
$\begingroup$

The market for heavy launchers is probably mostly only small because of the cost.

Orbital payloads are a compromise between cost, mass and capability, and if Starship allows launching more mass for less money you can build your satellite with cheaper (heavier) materials, your satellite can carry more fuel (and therefore survive on orbit for longer), you can add more batteries and more solar panels (and therefore have more/more powerful radio transmitters).

The obvious question remains whether Starship can actually live up to SpaceX's cost ambitions, if it can't then you're right, there might not be the demand for payloads. Additionally some of SpaceX's cost reductions will come from economies of scale, if they aren't able to fill lots of Starships with payloads then the costs will be even higher.

Even if the cost per kilo doesn't end up being significantly less than Falcon 9, ride-share missions could still end up being cheaper given that you might be able to fit 10 Falcon 9 payloads in Starship.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "you might be able to fit 10 Falcon 9 payloads in Starship." Assuming you can find 10 payloads that want to launch to the same orbit on the same launch date. Orbital phase changes are cheap, altitude changes are expensive and orbital inclination changes out of the question. Ride sharing must be compared with small launchers which can provide custom orbits (including polar orbits) and flexible launch schedules. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented Sep 3 at 20:35
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @Starship The Space Shuttle was supposed to be cheap, too. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 11:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Starship "is expected" is the keyword here. There are a lot of "if" that have to be fulfilled to make this true. If it is fully and quickly reusable (basically no reforbishment needed after landing, incredible launch cadence). If only halfe of the expectations are fulfilled it's already revolutionary. $\endgroup$
    – TrySCE2AUX
    Commented Sep 4 at 13:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Agreed but even if costs 10 times more than what they say it’s still essentially destroys the use case for any other rocket @TrySCE2AUX $\endgroup$
    – Starship
    Commented Sep 4 at 20:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Starship So far flight data shows that it costs ∞ times more than what they said it would since they can't yet get to a circularized LEO orbit with zero payload. They have a long way to go to get to only 10 times what they said it would. $\endgroup$
    – phil1008
    Commented Sep 5 at 4:14
12
$\begingroup$

While the other answers are not wrong (a market for Starship launches may materialize), I feel they miss the point that SpaceX doesn't need a market for Starship launches. They can just create their own demand by using it to launch Starlink sattelites.

That's how they use Falcon 9 already now. As of September 2023: "Nearly 60 percent of SpaceX's missions so far this year have carried Starlink Internet satellites into orbit". And that's the first real payload that will ride on Starship as well. Internal demand is guaranteed, which guarantees certain economics of scale. And that in turn will almost certainly guarantee that Starship will be even cheaper than Falcon 9 (per Starlink satellite launched). This alone will be a big win for SpaceX – regardless whether external customers will buy it or not.

You could even argue that SpaceX isn't primarily a launch company anymore but a satellite communications company that has an in-house launch capability that they also sell externally.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The need for Starlink launches will eventually diminish. Guessing at some numbers, let’s say 200 V2 Starlink can be launched at a time on Starship, and they need to launch 30,000 to build out the fleet. That would be 150 launches, which Falcon 9 can do in just over a year, Starship should eventually be able to do at least that cadence. After the constellation is built only replacement Starlinks will need to be launched. Could SpaceX continue to survive just with Starlink? Probably. But I think there would be room for some substantial revenue from new capabilities that Starship might create. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 18:52
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Starlink have a fairly short life and will nee to be replaced on an on going basis. $\endgroup$
    – Slarty
    Commented Sep 4 at 20:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slarty - I wonder how many Starship launches per year would be needed to keep the constellation going? Sort of difficult to estimate, SpaceX is approved for 42,000 but Elon says they probably don't need that many, but let's go with that. Current lifespan about five years, will that increase? Don't know. We don't know how many full size V2s Starship can launch, or how many V3s. Let's go with 42,000/5 = 8400 per year, 100 per launch would be 84 launches per year. I think there's a good chance it will be less than that. More Starlink launches than others? Initially yes, long term hard to say. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 20:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes hard to say by 1 launch a week would be a good starter for ten to keep them busy at a base line level. $\endgroup$
    – Slarty
    Commented Sep 4 at 22:25
9
$\begingroup$

If Starship is able to meet its planned goals of greatly lowering the cost of launching large payloads into space, there seems to be a number of possible marketable uses for such a capability.

Note that some of these capabilities might not fit within the current designs for Starship which are based on Starlink launches and the Artemis Moon landing. It is possible that there will be other designs for the second stage ship, with various types of openings and methods for deploying payloads, including a cargo door at the front of the ship. There could be expendable versions of the ship for high energy launches using fairings, and versions that will be used in space but not return to Earth, similar to what is currently planned for Artemis.

Starship can potentially:

  • Lower the cost to build satellites by reducing weight and volume restrictions, as well as reducing launch costs, enabling more companies and countries to launch more satellites into Earth orbit.
  • Enable larger, more robust, and less costly interplanetary probes and landers, and a higher number of them.
  • Enable larger space telescopes with less of the complicated JWST type of folding required.
  • Greatly expand smallsat and nanosat rideshare opportunities for university, research, and smaller commercial organizations (perhaps using something like the Starlink Pez deployment method).
  • Launch satellite constellations similar to Starlink for other companies and countries (factoring in possible competition with Starlink).
  • Launch large military payloads.
  • Enable the deployment and later retrieval of military payloads, missions similar to what is currently performed by the X-37B.
  • Point-to-Point military cargo delivery (which the military is already looking into).

Starship also has the potential to:

  • Function as a commercial or government space station, which can remain in orbit as long as needed then return for refurbishment, upgrades, etc. This could enable countries that currently do not have space launch capability to own (or lease) and operate their own space station, crewed with their own astronauts, who would launch on commercial vehicles such as Dragon.
  • Function as a tourist hotel.
  • Assist in building permanent commercial or government space stations.
  • Provide cargo supply and cargo return capability to space stations.
  • Provide Shuttle-like construction and maintenance capability using one or more robotic arms (crews would possibly arrive at the site via capsule).
  • Ferry cargo to and from the Moon.
  • Transport people to and from lunar orbit or the Moon's surface from low Earth orbit.
  • Function as a lunar base (possibly for other countries also).
  • Assist in building permanent lunar bases.
  • Be used as a fuel depot for other methane powered vehicles.
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Good ideas. I like the point that there is no reason for Starship design to remain frozen. Once the raptor engine is popping off the assembly line, heat protection is solved and re-entry aerodynamics is refined, size and engine configurations are relatively easy to vary, The hard development work will have been done. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented Sep 4 at 1:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ factoring in possible competition with Starlink not sure that's a factor, Elon has said in the past he doesn't care about competition, if you want to launch a starlink competitor spacex will do that for you (e.g. they are launching some oneweb satellites). Doing this will also help SpaceX avoid monopoly accusations $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 5:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, I'm not sure if the intent here was to make a realistic list or an aspirational list. If you are going for realistic, then this calculation suggests that Starship HLS probably can't make it from LEO to the moon's surface and back. $\endgroup$
    – phil1008
    Commented Sep 5 at 3:50
  • $\begingroup$ @phil1008 - HLS is not designed to return to LEO. Of all the items on my list, returning cargo from the Moon, or carrying people to and from the Moon, would probably be the farthest in the future, when Starship capabilities, performance, and design will likely be very different than what we have seen so far in the development test flights of the first version of Starship. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ This post could be improved by better defining what is meant by "Starship". Without a clear definition, its capabilities range from "Can't get to orbit with zero payload" to "Capable of single-stage to orbit" (ref). $\endgroup$
    – phil1008
    Commented Sep 5 at 5:33
6
$\begingroup$

If Mars colonization falls through, what economically viable uses are there for Starship?

Everything every other launcher does (and more). According to this article:

In a cost per kilogram of payload basis, a single use Super Heavy Starship can bring the cost down nearly ten times to about 150 dollars per kilogram. However, high reuse of the Super Heavy Starship will bring the cost down to $10-20 per kilogram.

For reference, Falcon 9’s costs 69.75 million dollars per (RTLS) launch. Dividing that by the payload to LEO gives a 7287 dollars cost per kilogram to orbit. So by simply switching to Starship, a customer needs to pay either roughly 2% for single use or roughly 0.14-0.27% percent if heavily reused, as measured in cost per kilogram. Considering that Starship has a capacity of 250,000 kilograms when expended or 150,000 kilograms when reused, even if you purchase a decided launch and carry the same payload as you would on Falcon 9, you would still pay roughly 23.1% of the Falcon 9 launch using the single use version and 0.907-1.814% of the cost of the Falcon 9 launch if it is heavily reused. This works out to around 53.64 million saved on a single use and somewhere from $69.12-69.43 million saved when heavily reused.

Falcon 9 isn’t alone, I know of no orbital rocket that is expected to be cheaper (in terms of total launch costs) than a reused starship. I can’t imagine why, once starship is reliable and consistent, anyone would use another rocket.

In reality, many customers would actually use the extra payload capacity or share their launch with other customers, further increasing their savings.

An example of this is Starlink, which (provided the that SpaceX lowering launch costs means the cost to launch a rocket for themselves is proportionally lower) assuming that it would use a reusable Starships full capacity (why wouldn’t it, it already flies in batches anyways), would save somewhere from 99.984-99.992% (or much more on other rockets).

So, once Starship becomes consistent and reliable, what sane customer wouldn’t use Starship over Falcon 9? Why wouldn’t you get the better launcher with the 99.992% off tag?

Quickly looking a few things up tells me that the average cost per kilogram for cargo airlines is around 3-7 dollars. The average price for an average economy class one-way domestic ticket is around 135 dollars. Doing some math shows that (very roughly), using Falcon 9 over a heavily reused Starship (in the above scenario) is about as much more expensive (defined as percentage of money wasted) as buying a 1 kilogram package (that's traveling domestically) an 2-3 economy class tickets, or slightly less expensive than buying it one business class ticket, rather than placing it in a cargo plane. I certainly don’t know anyone who does that, and I doubt you do either.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ And even if SpaceX's cost estimated are off by a factor of 10, and the price of Falcon is overcharged by a factor of 2, Starship still comes out ahead. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 18:54
1
$\begingroup$

Forget transport... Starship could be the 1st Space Warship. With this platform, the U.S. could establish space superiority out to L2, potentially beyond. Weapons could include everything from directed energy to missiles,, and "Rods from God".

New contributor
Corey Marshall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The weight for the "Rods from God" concept makes them uncompetitive in terms of dollars per unit of bang unless you are building them in space from materials collected in space. $\endgroup$
    – Perkins
    Commented Sep 4 at 22:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hey, Corey. Welcome! Please make your answer a bit longer and better so that it doesn't get deleted by our resident sticklers. Here's a link to a report where RAND Corp studied space weapons. It should help you to craft a more enduring post. rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209.html $\endgroup$
    – phil1008
    Commented Sep 5 at 3:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Perkins Going off of proposals from Wikipedia, data from Wolfram|Alpha, and Googled payload and cost targets, Starship could eventually put 17 such rounds into orbit for under $100 million. I'm no orbital weapons platform expert, but 4 orbital planes with 4 launchers each would provide half decent coverage for 0.2% of the US defense budget. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Commented Sep 6 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ @James The yield though is measured in tons of tnt. For $120 million you could get a pair of Trident I ICBMs that are stored on the ground where maintenance is easy plus five 100 kiloton warheads each with MIRV guidance systems. Presumably you could split it out into a larger quantity of smaller, conventional warheads if you wished as well. Kinetic impactors would be something to build out of materials that are already up there with no better use available. $\endgroup$
    – Perkins
    Commented Sep 6 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ If there is a need for an uninterceptable weapon that can be targeted globally, and little manufacturing capacity in space, it seems a viable approach. Whether warfare will make it to a point where RfG is the most practical approach to destroying some target, I won't speculate on, but it is plausible that it could happen and I think still a valid answer $\endgroup$
    – James
    Commented 2 days ago
0
$\begingroup$

The military is "exploring" the possibility of using Spacex Starship to deploy troops and equipment around the Globe faster. Falcon Heavy is on the Space Force web site.

https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3628417/united-states-space-force-launches-seventh-x-37b-mission/

Alex Hollings - Airpower youtuber

New contributor
Mike Grimm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.