26ft diameter space station modules

[Anonymous No.15386791]

Gravitics Starmax & Airbus LOOP

What will anybody even do in LEO that requires that much habitable volume? Not complaining, it's cool stuff, I just wonder what profitable activities can benefit from modules this large.

[Anonymous No.15386794]

Incidentally this is larger than the 21ft diameter of Skylab, and the modules based on it, designed under the assumption that the Saturn V would continue to be used

[Anonymous No.15386806]

>>15386794
BTW. Here is question. Why don't you make module of oversized diameter and put it in the top of the rocket? Without fairing. Walls of the module woule be external skin of the fairing.

[Anonymous No.15386811]

>>15386806

I would assume to protect it from hitting birds on the way to orbit

[Anonymous No.15386821]

[Anonymous No.15386848]

What the fuck is a ft mate?

[Anonymous No.15386852]

>>15386848

How God measures the universe he created, which his holy nation America is the center of

[Anonymous No.15386863]

>>15386791
What will anyone do with a vehicle that can carry 5 passenger and go faster than a horse? We already have horses!

What will anyone do with a vehicle that can carry 100 passenger and go faster than a sound? We already have trains!

But to address your questions, people will do things they desire. If you have a LEO habitat that can house 10 people, 10 people from gov/private individuals can partake in experiments. If you have a LEO habitat that can house 100 people, 100 people can partake in the exercising their desires.

[Anonymous No.15386865]

>>15386863

Even with reusable rockets, access to LEO is very costly. So you sell tickets to billionaires until they've all gotten tired of it. Then what?

[Anonymous No.15386867]

>>15386865
Then they start paying for rides for their pet minorities, cash in on their virtue signalling needs.

[Anonymous No.15386868]

>>15386867

That's your business plan? Affirmative Afronauts?

[Anonymous No.15386873]

>>15386865
If Starship costs $50M per launch to bring 100 people to LEO habitat, thats $500K per person. Its not trivial, but its not ~$50M per person like it is today. Thus with price being 500K per person, cost of access becomes available to much greater pool of humanity than just handful of people today. From billionaires today, millionaires tomorrow, thousandaires the day after.

[Anonymous No.15386879]

>>15386873
>From billionaires today, millionaires tomorrow, thousandaires the day after.

It's not moore's law, it won't just keep getting cheaper until it's free. From billionaires to millionaires, sure. But that's where it stops.

[Anonymous No.15386887]

>>15386879
The cost of taking something to LEO is mostly the cost of building a rocket. Once we have launch vehicles that can run 100s of launches with only minor repairs the cost of production can be recouped over a longer period of use with much more competitive prices.

[Anonymous No.15386892]

>>15386887

Yeah and those eventual target prices have already been calculated. There's more costs than you're copping to. Fuel is not free. Launch pad repairs are not free. Operating all the support vehicles isn't free, etc. $500k is Musk's most optimistic projection, not what SpaceX can deliver now.

[Anonymous No.15386898]

>>15386892
>$500k is Musk's most optimistic projection
With the current rockets being produced, not for forever you double retard

[Anonymous No.15386899]

>>15386898

Instead of becoming emotional, explain your reasoning and present evidence that the rockets currently being produced can deliver people to LEO for $500k a head, or why you think they indicate that the price will keep going down until anybody can afford to go to space.

[Anonymous No.15386903]

>>15386892
500k is the goal (or less) for a ticket to mars, not LEO
200 dollars/kg to LEO would mean a ticket to LEO in the 20k range, starting to be something that the middle classes of western countries can afford after a bit of saving, comparable to some of the exotic trips people do right now like Antarctica
Musk has said that the goal for starship for mass to LEO is something like 20 dollars/kg (2 million per launch for 150 metric tons), which would mean an even lower cost

when a trip to LEO is something like 5k, pretty much everyone in western countries can stretch to afford it

[Anonymous No.15386904]

>>15386899
>instead of becoming emotional
Awww did I hurt your fee fees? Maybe you should go to plebbit. I hear it's a safe place.
>explain your reasoning and present evidence that the rockets currently being produced can deliver people to LEO for $500k a head
The other anon already did the math for you. You ignored it, like a double retard.
>or why you think they indicate that the price will keep going down until anybody can afford to go to space.
Because that's how technology works. If you want to play this game, please explain why you think the prices wouldn't fall?

[Anonymous No.15386906]

>>15386903
>200 dollars/kg to LEO would mean a ticket to LEO in the 20k range, starting to be something that the middle classes of western countries can afford after a bit of saving, comparable to some of the exotic trips people do right now like Antarctica

This sounds like wishful thinking. You just want to go to space in your lifetime and can't afford to. I'll believe $20k to orbit when I see it.

[Anonymous No.15386914]

>>15386892
Fuel cost $1M-$2M. Rockets costs ~$100M. Static operations costs ~$500K-1M. Refurbishment costs ~$1-10M. If you amortize rocket cost by 30 flights, thats $3.3M per launch cost. Lets say another $5M for R/D amortization.

So $1.5M Fuel, $750K operations. $5M refurb, $3.3M rocket amortization. $5M for R/D amortization = 15.5M. + Lets say $30M profit per launch = $45.5M launch cost. With plenty of room to scale up and down the cost as well if they want to. SpaceX could reduce profit to increase flight rate. Go from $30M profit to $15M profit and it would cost $30M per launch total. Which would mean for 100 people to orbit, it would cost ~300K per person.

Starship launch cost will be this.

[Anonymous No.15386920]

>>15386868
thats nasas plan too.
getting negros to accomplish what whites managed in the previous century is big business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwVM0GDV3c

[Anonymous No.15386921]

>>15386904
>Awww did I hurt your fee fees? Maybe you should go to plebbit. I hear it's a safe place.

The exact opposite of this happened. You became emotional, because I hurt your fee fees.

>The other anon already did the math for you. You ignored it, like a double retard.

That was you, and no you didn't. Quoting speculative numbers is not showing your work.

>Because that's how technology works. If you want to play this game, please explain why you think the prices wouldn't fall?

Because not all technologies follow moore's law.

[Anonymous No.15386926]

>>15386914

Do we agree 300k is much more than the 20k quoted earlier?

[Anonymous No.15386930]

>>15386926
Oh that other guy, 20K is probably well off in the far future so I'm not the one saying that. The 300-500K is the near future range and thats likely what we'll see in the first few years of Starship operations.

After ~5 years of Starship, it may go down to 100K/p but not less unless they do Starship 2.0

[Anonymous No.15386933]

>>15386930

How will fuel dramatically decrease in price by that time?

[Anonymous No.15386935]

>>15386933
Fuel is only $1-2M per launch. Its already a non issue, I don't understand the complaint.

[Anonymous No.15386936]

>>15386935

How will all the other costs listed in this post also decrease dramatically by then? >>15386892

[Anonymous No.15386937]

>>15386933
>kerosene and oxygen are le expensive

[Anonymous No.15386953]

>>15386936
Refurb cost will decrease as vehicle matures
Operating cost will decrease as more launch happens, its purely time/launch aka employee paychecks are paid by hour not by launch.
Not sure why you're saying launch pad repairs, unless you're arguing every launch will be same as the first prototype test launch. Thats nonsense. Launch pad repairs happen maybe once every few year or so and thats for minor repairs.
Eventually R/D will be paid off, amortization of Rocket will go down and so on as they launch more and more.
Then there's the larger capacity models that can bring the cost down per kg as well.
So the path to a cheaper Starship is well within sight, it will just have to mature a bit, theres nothing ground breaking requirement at all, just time and practice.

[Anonymous No.15387149]

>>15386914
Musk has talked about 10Mil at first and 2Mil as a strech goal, no refurbishment at all

[Anonymous No.15387423]

>>15387149
No refurb may happen as the vehicle matures, but not initially.

2M is the cost to SpaceX excluding employees pay who get paid nominally/excluding r/d amortization/excluding Starship amortization/etc.

$10M is fully considered probably without profit. But for profit, they'll likely sell externally for ~$40-50M for the first few years and may even underbid down to $10-20M since they're still reaping some profits at that.

[Anonymous No.15387447]

>>15386806
>>15386811
they did that with Skylab, but it got fucked up from aero forces, and needed repairs in orbit to be usable

[Anonymous No.15387579]

>>15386791
Coriolis force.

[Anonymous No.15387594]

>>15387149
Keep in mind that 10M divided by 100 passengers is 100k per individual.

OP is just an actual retard who can't into math.

[Anonymous No.15387652]

>>15386791
>no spin grav
Into the trash it goes