Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

People seem to miss the forest for the trees here. The goal is to get a base on the moon, and this is the first step. Starship will eventually be bringing lots and lots of cargo to the moon for this purpose. Bringing people there for a few days and then bringing them back is a very short term goal.


[flagged]


Falcon 9 launches every three days. It's not even fully reusable and it burns kerolox, requiring the engine be cleaned.

I doubt they'll have that cadence ready for Starship within NASA's ambitious timeframe, but if they can get orbital refuelling and full reuse working (which are big ifs) high cadence should only be a matter of time. And when you're just refueling it every flight, rather than building a bespoke new rocket (as with SLS), the cost for twelve launches would likely be significantly lower than one SLS launch.

The internal cost for a Falcon 9 is approximately 15 million, and that's including a thrown away second stage, drone ship usage, fairing recovery, and engine refurbishment.


Why focus on launches and not cost per ton to lunar surface? Since that is the primary focus.


So far the cost is at infinity dollars per ton, give or take a few billion.

The focus on launches is because a single launch failure has the ability to make all the rest go to waste.


it really depends on price and cadence.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: