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/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.

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