/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16178464
>given that's starship's goal
It's still a design choice that has tradeoffs, sure it allows you have to have a deep space missions via refueling, but that refueling architecture results in massively increased mission complexity.

>>16178468
Its overkill in that there isn't a 100 ton to LEO launch market. There's not much demand for that much lift as evidenced by the fact Roscosmos back in the 90s couldn't get anyone buy an Energia launch despite the fact that they were offering them for pennies.

>>16178633
>has less communication and more complexity with seemingly less redundancy
Which it is and that is a problem. His point wasn't even limited to starship in this regard given that Gateway will be in a NRHO.

>>16178807
>Why don't you check how much the SLS cost before even the first launch
The cost of SLS independent of the cost of starship, and while Starship may cost less than Starship other SHLVs, a launch its not going to be less than that of a Falcon Heavy. So if we're going off the original source selection statement

>>16179097
>he's eschewing executive bonuses and investor payouts
That is not true given that he was trying to get a $55 billion executive bonus, which would have been the largest in history, from Tesla.
>favor of actually spending the money himself.
The only money he personally put into SpaceX was back in 2002, SpaceX in recently up about a billion or two dollars every year in funding from venture capital.
Which shouldn't be surprising since most of Musk's wealth is tied up in his stocks, and as such he does have much liquid cash on had, hence why he had borrow $13 billion dollars in order to help pay for his acquisition of twitter.