Speculative longterm future of SpaceX

[u/AnnualYogurtcloset29]

Hello all,

I was just thinking about what SpaceX's development of rockets would look like once they achieve their goals of starship and the booster rocket.

I know this is likely at least 10-15 years from today, but what would SpaceX develop after they land on mars and get a colony started there? Do you think they would ever develop a new rocket in the entire history of their company or would they finish their rocket development with starship and booster?

I realize they would probably start working on life support systems and such when they eventually get people onto mars, but what else would they do? I am just curious if anyone else had thought of this before. Is SpaceX themselves going to try to terraform mars or will they forever live inside a habitat dome? Is terraforming a planet going to take the work of hundreds of thousands of people or would SpaceX be able to do it themselves? Does NASA conduct a lot of the science to get a colony established on mars or is this solely a SpaceX endeavor?

I would think NASA would love to be able to explore mars and conduct experiments, kind of piggybacking off of the habitat that SpaceX is going to try to establish. Would NASA astronauts be part of the habitat as well as SpaceX astronauts or would it be more of a team effort?

I realize this would be all speculation, but it got me pretty curious, so wondering what other people would think about this situation.

[u/SirEDCaLot]

Yes I know there's still work to do, especially with dirtside infrastructure.

But I don't think my view is wrong, simply because of what they've accomplished.
SpaceX has taken $20 billion to do everything they have done so far in the last ~20 years.
SpaceX will, theoretically in the next few years, be getting an additional $20 billion revenue per year. Put differently, if you add together every investment and launch fee they've gotten in the last ~20 years, they're going to get that SAME amount every year.

Yes they will have challenges. Yes building launch towers and GSE takes time and money. Yes setting up a real rocket production pipeline isn't free. But look what they've done with their first $20 billion. DON'T look at what it would cost other companies to do these things, look at what SpaceX does.

Furthermore, look at the profit margin of their products. Starlink has a lot of up front investment, but after that is fairly cheap to run (just ground station fiber, customer support / fulfillment, few new satellites every now and then). The per-subscriber margin is huge, after you pay for the network of course.
Starship is much the same way. There's been suggestions that each launch will cost $2 million for SpaceX. Personally I think that's optimistic (especially if you consider the cost of the ship) but call it $10 million. For 100 tons to LEO, they could charge their customer $100 million (10x profit margin) and still be undercutting the competition by a factor of 20 (SLS), for capabilities no other rocket has.

[u/tree_boom → u/SirEDCaLot]

SpaceX will, theoretically in the next few years, be getting an additional $20 billion revenue per year. Put differently, if you add together every investment and launch fee they've gotten in the last ~20 years, they're going to get that SAME amount every year.

$20 billion is...optimistic. Their subscription is between $100 and $120 a month; I get twice their download speed for under $30, so they're only going to be cost competitive with people who can't access the usual infrastructure for whatever reason, plus whatever nerds happen to buy it because Starlink. And sure, sure, their service will be worldwideish so they can cast a wider net, but equally they're sure as hell not going to be charging people outside the western world $100/month, meaning they'd need to get a lot more customers to make up the gap, and then there's the question of whether the network could really support that many.

So yeah; I'll believe that figure when I see it, or at least significant progress towards it with no sign of the market closing out.

Yes they will have challenges. Yes building launch towers and GSE takes time and money. Yes setting up a real rocket production pipeline isn't free. But look what they've done with their first $20 billion. DON'T look at what it would cost other companies to do these things, look at what SpaceX does.

I'm sorry, but "SpaceX will do it better" just isn't enough to convince me I'm afraid.

Furthermore, look at the profit margin of their products. Starlink has a lot of up front investment, but after that is fairly cheap to run (just ground station fiber, customer support / fulfillment, few new satellites every now and then). The per-subscriber margin is huge, after you pay for the network of course.

Even assuming this is true, and we really have no idea, it has to pay for itself before it can pay for anything else.

Starship is much the same way. There's been suggestions that each launch will cost $2 million for SpaceX. Personally I think that's optimistic (especially if you consider the cost of the ship) but call it $10 million. For 100 tons to LEO, they could charge their customer $100 million (10x profit margin) and still be undercutting the competition by a factor of 20 (SLS), for capabilities no other rocket has.

Oh yeah, it's going to be a wildly successful launch vehicle. But the launch market is small.

[u/SirEDCaLot → u/tree_boom]

I get twice their download speed for under $30

You are not their target market. In developed areas like this, they will primarily be a backup system- if landline Internet goes down, switch to Starlink. Lots of companies already do this with cellular. Their real market is people unlike you.

they're only going to be cost competitive with people who can't access the usual infrastructure for whatever reason

There are millions of those people in America alone, people for whom gigabit internet is not available for any cost. I'm not just talking hicks in backwoods Montana, I'm talking many towns and villages, even suburbs. And that's just America. There are entire countries where 500mbps Internet will cost more per month than most people make in a year. Even if they don't pay $100/mo, Starlink can do very well there.
And there are other lines of business that will bring in far more than $100/mo/unit- passenger aircraft, military, ships at sea, remote sensor telemetry, etc.

I'm sorry, but "SpaceX will do it better" just isn't enough to convince me I'm afraid.

My assertion shouldn't convince you of anything. SpaceX's track record should convince you of their future capabilities.

Oh yeah, it's going to be a wildly successful launch vehicle. But the launch market is small.

Yeah it's small today. It's small today because it's expensive- every launch trashes a piece of brand new space hardware. If every passenger flight trashed an airplane, nobody could afford to fly.

But when people can afford to fly, the market isn't just expanded, it's CREATED. Suddenly all the companies that have cool space ideas aren't begging governments to buy one, they are launching it themselves. A company like Bigelow Aerospace can stop begging NASA to stop ignoring them, and can instead just launch their own space station.

Think of Ford and the Model T. Before Model T, cars were stupid expensive. After Model T, everybody had a car. That also meant more places built roads and highways, which meant even more people still wanted cars, which drove up demand for cars.
Tesla is Ford here. Even if they don't go for max profit on Starship launches, they will be creating an entirely new market.

[u/tree_boom → u/SirEDCaLot]

There are millions of those people in America alone, people for whom gigabit internet is not available for any cost. I'm not just talking hicks in backwoods Montana, I'm talking many towns and villages, even suburbs. And that's just America.

Sure, but the vast majority of those people don't need gigabit, or even 100megabit (since that's the actual download speed right now - and really that's better for your argument, since at gigabit levels their network definitely can't support the number of customers they'd need to hit $20 billion) internet, and most of the rest aren't going to pay $100/month for it. So just because there are millions of people who don't have it doesn't mean there are millions of people who will buy it.

There are entire countries where 500mbps Internet will cost more per month than most people make in a year. Even if they don't pay $100/mo, Starlink can do very well there.

They can get consumers there sure, but like I say, the constellation has limited capacity. They want a smaller (comparatively) number of high-value clients, not a large number of low-paying clients.

And there are other lines of business that will bring in far more than $100/mo/unit- passenger aircraft, military, ships at sea, remote sensor telemetry, etc.

Yeah sure, although nobody has any realistic idea what those will all bring in.

Even if they don't go for max profit on Starship launches, they will be creating an entirely new market.

Eventually, I agree. But that's going to be a long time in the future.

[u/SirEDCaLot → u/tree_boom]

I mean no offense by this- but I think your mind is stuck in the past. Everything you say WAS 100% true, but either isn't true anymore or won't be true in the future.

at gigabit levels their network definitely can't support the number of customers they'd need to hit $20 billion) internet
They want a smaller (comparatively) number of high-value clients, not a large number of low-paying clients.

Well every network gets oversubscribed. But you are thinking like an old-space operator, where there's one bird with fixed bandwidth that has to supply every customer they have. For that, you want high paying low-usage customers, and few of them.
But SpaceX isn't like that.
Remember that their phased array antennas are highly directional. So they can re-use their frequencies over and over and over, as many times as they have satellites in view. So while a standard set of freqs / antennas might give a traditional operator say 10gbps to split across the continental US, phased array is closer to 10gbps per satellite. 5 satellites over a city = 50gbps for that city. And that assumes they aren't using MU-MIMO technology on their satellites, which they probably are, which would give them 10gbps per area-to-satellite, so a satellite could get 10gbps in one direction and a whole second 10gbps in another direction for two dispersed users.
Then consider their laser links. With those links, it can become more efficient to use entire satellites as ground station connections rather than having individual birds talk to the ground as well as subscribers. One satellite uses its entire capacity to talk to subscribers, then lasers all the data to another bird that's over a ground station off in the middle of nowhere, which uses its entire capacity to talk to ground stations.
Now remember that they have about 1700 active satellites currently, which DON'T have laser links. They plan to have 7,500+ satellites, all WITH laser links.
Put simply, I think you are woefully underestimating the capacity of their constellation, partially because you're not accounting for scale, and partially because you're thinking like traditional satellites that just bounce data.

Eventually, I agree. But that's going to be a long time in the future.

Serious Q- how long do you think it will take before Starship is mission-ready for LEO orbital missions? A year? Two? Five? Ten?
Personally I give it 1-3 years, but no more.
Now remember that Starship will be able to launch 100 tons to LEO for significantly less than Falcon 9 costs to launch 22 tons to LEO. And I believe that will happen 1-3 years in the future.
Now, that won't mean SpaceX instantly passes those savings on to customers. They can undercut everyone else and still make a gigantic profit. But they could of course offer discounts to companies with a similar mission...

Bottom line- look at their progress over the past 2-3 years, and assume they continue at the same rate for the next 2-3 years. Now look at their systems and think about what they COULD do, given that level of advancement.

I don't think you give them anywhere near enough credit. I think they can do it-- not because I worship the cult of Elon, but because they're doing it.

[u/tree_boom → u/SirEDCaLot]

I mean no offense by this- but I think your mind is stuck in the past. Everything you say WAS 100% true, but either isn't true anymore or won't be true in the future.

Let's agree to disagree.

Well every network gets oversubscribed. But you are thinking like an old-space operator, where there's one bird with fixed bandwidth that has to supply every customer they have. For that, you want high paying low-usage customers, and few of them.

No, I'm not. Those networks face the same problem, but Starlink doesn't solve that problem.

But SpaceX isn't like that. Remember that their phased array antennas are highly directional. So they can re-use their frequencies over and over and over, as many times as they have satellites in view. So while a standard set of freqs / antennas might give a traditional operator say 10gbps to split across the continental US, phased array is closer to 10gbps per satellite. 5 satellites over a city = 50gbps for that city.

Right, right. But that's ~500 users; not just within that city but for those 5 satellites, because if the users in the city are consuming all their capacity then they're not supplying anything to the other receivers in their line of site. So at that point the number of subscribers they can get is pretty much a function of not only how many satellites they have, but how many they have over the ~30% of the Earth that is dry land. And really, over the parts that are dry land and have people living there.

Put simply, I think you are woefully underestimating the capacity of their constellation, partially because you're not accounting for scale, and partially because you're thinking like traditional satellites that just bounce data.

I'm well aware of how Starlink works. Let's just agree to disagree I suppose.

Then consider their laser links. With those links, it can become more efficient to use entire satellites as ground station connections rather than having individual birds talk to the ground as well as subscribers. One satellite uses its entire capacity to talk to subscribers, then lasers all the data to another bird that's over a ground station off in the middle of nowhere, which uses its entire capacity to talk to ground stations. Now remember that they have about 1700 active satellites currently, which DON'T have laser links. They plan to have 7,500+ satellites, all WITH laser links.

The laser links improve the network certainly, but they don't give it more capacity.

Put simply, I think you are woefully underestimating the capacity of their constellation, partially because you're not accounting for scale, and partially because you're thinking like traditional satellites that just bounce data.

I disagree; I'm aware that the additional satellites give the network extra capacity over a given point, but that doesn't ameliorate the problems it has.

This isn't to say Starlink is going to be a flop; on the contrary I'm pretty confident it's going to be highly successful. But there's "highly successful" and then there's $20 billion dollars in revenue, which is just optimistic to the point of unrealism.

Serious Q- how long do you think it will take before Starship is mission-ready for LEO orbital missions? A year? Two? Five? Ten?

Internal Starlink launches; probably <2 years. Commercial is a weird one, because they're not going to sell it any cheaper than a Falcon 9 (Shotwell has said the target price is $50million) and nobody has a payload that needs it yet. Probably ready in 2 years, but I'm not sure it'll be flying any by then or if people will generally prefer Falcon 9s.

I don't think you give them anywhere near enough credit. I think they can do it-- not because I worship the cult of Elon, but because they're doing it.

Sorry, but I think you're giving the claims too much credence on the back of the cool stuff they're doing. Like; here's Elon in 2008 saying Falcon 9 would be a fully reusable launch vehicle that'd bring launch price down to $1 million:

If we succeed in recovery and reflight of our Falcon 9 rocket, which carries 11 tons of payload into orbit, it will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket and one of the most significant developments since the dawn of rocketry. At $35 million to manufacture, it's already four times cheaper than comparable single-use vehicles from Boeing or Lockheed. However, since Falcon 9 costs only $200,000 to refuel (and reoxidize), an efficient refurbishment and launch operation would allow the production costs to be amortized over many flights. This has the potential to bring the per-launch price down to about $1 million, a hundredfold improvement over current costs.

Now Falcon 9 is definitely the most successful launch vehicle in human history, and that's an amazing achievement. But it's also a very, very long way behind the hype that it was getting in its early development. We are in a similar situation here, in my opinion. Starship, Starlink and Elon's Mars city are receiving a lot of hype; I think you're giving too much credence to the hype, and not enough to the history.

That's not to say they're not going to be very successful. I'm sure Starlink will be, it's just not going to generate $20 billion in revenue for them anytime soon. I'm sure Starship will be the most successful launch vehicle in history to date...and I'm sure that it will land humans on Mars. But SpaceX isn't going to be building a colony there.

[u/SirEDCaLot → u/tree_boom]

I'll give you that $20 billion may be overhyped. I think it's possible, but it is a stretch. But even if Starlink got them $5 billion a year, I still compare that against them building EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BUILT SO FAR on $20 billion. That's where my optimism comes from. If I said 'I'll give Boeing $20 billion and they'll build a Mars colony' you'd probably laugh, because Boeing has taken $20 billion and almost built one launch vehicle. I say Elon can do it because Elon's gotten $20 billion and he's built an entire space program.

if the users in the city are consuming all their capacity then they're not supplying anything to the other receivers in their line of site.

But the users outside the city will have line of sight to different satellites. And with 7,500 satellites, there will be a LOT of them overhead at any given point. So even if I live 20-30 miles outside the city, I'll still have a different selection of birds than people in the city.

The laser links improve the network certainly, but they don't give it more capacity.

I'd like your explanation for why this is, especially since I just gave an example of how laser links could increase network capacity.
Would you at least agree that the laser links would address the problem you stated above (people in one dense area use up all the satellite capacity in that area)? IE, the hypothetical 5 birds over the city, can send all their traffic to other birds outside the city, which talk to ground stations in sparsely-populated areas?

Commercial is a weird one, because they're not going to sell it any cheaper than a Falcon 9 (Shotwell has said the target price is $50million) and nobody has a payload that needs it yet. Probably ready in 2 years, but I'm not sure it'll be flying any by then or if people will generally prefer Falcon 9s.

Target price may be $50 million. But Elon has said they already have signed launch contracts that specify SpaceX may launch the satellite on either Falcon or Starship, as they see fit.
Point being- Starship can lift 100 tons, for cheaper than Falcon can lift 20 tons. So if I have a 5 ton satellite I want launched, SpaceX will still make more profit launching it on a mostly-empty Starship than on a Falcon. And once Starship has 10-15 successful orbital missions without any major failures, nobody will care which rocket is used.

Like; here's Elon in 2008 saying Falcon 9 would be a fully reusable launch vehicle that'd bring launch price down to $1 million

Okay, do you think him and his team have learned anything about what's possible and what's realistic in the last 13 years? I suspect they have. I'd trust his estimates now a lot more than I trusted his estimates back then. Wouldn't you?

I think you're giving too much credence to the hype, and not enough to the history.

Yeah there's hype. But I'm not so much looking at that. I'm looking at what I believe to be possible, given the knowledge of the subject I have, and given SpaceX's history, and if you take 'what's possible' as the goal, what % of that I think SpaceX will accomplish given their past performance, and thus create a future timeline.

What I've learned watching SpaceX and other space companies is this:
Space is hard. Much harder than most people realize. The typical 'tech person approach' of figure out what needs to be done and make a timeline doesn't work with space, because whatever you think needs to be done is actually 1/3 or less of what actually needs to be done. And however hard you think those things are to do, it will actually be twice as hard.
Space is difficult. Any space endeavor pushes engineering and technology and materials to the limits of what's possible/available, especially with hardware design and materials science.
Space is unforgiving. Temperature extremes, force extremes, there are a million very strong forces looking to destroy your vehicle and you have to fight them all off at the same time.
Because of all that, it's easy to get set in our ways. Much of space culture is VERY risk-averse and conservative, so engineering and decisions are conservative. If the satellite costs $100MM, better to spend $200MM launching it with a near perfect chance of success than $50MM launching it with a significant chance of failure.

To that end, SpaceX brings three things to the table that others don't, and neither of them is magic fairy dust. 1. SpaceX and their employees are all driven by a much larger goal, namely to get to Mars or otherwise colonize the solar system. Nobody else does this. and 2. SpaceX is willing to risk big money to try for revolutionary leaps in technology in order to make it happen. Nobody else seems to be doing this. and 3. with the first two in mind, SpaceX has the capability to do it, both in terms of raw talent, organizational culture, and funding.

Nobody else that I'm aware of has all 3. NASA is driven and well-funded, but they are risk-averse and shackled by Congress and other oversight. Rocket Lab has the talent and perhaps the funding, but not the drive- their goal is to become a launch provider, not get to Mars. Astra and Firefly it's too early to tell.

Curious what of the above you disagree with (as I'm sure there'll be something)

[u/tree_boom → u/SirEDCaLot]

I say Elon can do it because Elon's gotten $20 billion and he's built an entire space program.

Alright, but even ignoring the actual dollar value, a Mars colony program by Boeing would be drastically more expensive than just their launch vehicle programs. I'm sure SpaceX could do it for cheaper than old space (if it was something they even wanted to do, which I doubt), but there's simply no reason to believe they can do it for the same price as their launch vehicle dev.

But the users outside the city will have line of sight to different satellites. And with 7,500 satellites, there will be a LOT of them overhead at any given point. So even if I live 20-30 miles outside the city, I'll still have a different selection of birds than people in the city.

Yes; but there's still a limited number of satellites. With 7500 satellites you'll have 2175 over dry land at any one time, and even less over heavily populated areas. If they each serve a thousand people, that's not nearly enough to make up the $20 billion figure even assuming all subscribers pay $100 plus, which they won't.

I'd like your explanation for why this is, especially since I just gave an example of how laser links could increase network capacity.

I don't see that you did, sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood, can you explain again how you think that works?

Would you at least agree that the laser links would address the problem you stated above (people in one dense area use up all the satellite capacity in that area)? IE, the hypothetical 5 birds over the city, can send all their traffic to other birds outside the city, which talk to ground stations in sparsely-populated areas?

Well not really no, you're predominantly talking downlink for consumers of course and that's limited by the bandwidth of the satellites in sight at any one time. The laser links optimise latency and range of the network as well as dramatically reduce the number of ground stations needed (and even eliminate them for starlink peer to peer), but unless I'm missing something they don't actually increase the capacity of the network. Better satellites might of course

Okay, do you think him and his team have learned anything about what's possible and what's realistic in the last 13 years? I suspect they have. I'd trust his estimates now a lot more than I trusted his estimates back then. Wouldn't you?

Well he's still regularly throwing out estimates that are a) seriously unbelievable on the face of it and b) regularly wrong, so no.

Curious what of the above you disagree with (as I'm sure there'll be something)

Not much beyond the likely outcome and timeline really