Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NerfSchlerfen t1_j9o6r04 wrote

Reply to comment by HeyImGilly in Starship greenlit for launch after static fire test by DevilsRefugee

Cost-competitive with a space elevator. It'd change everything.

1

JeffFromSchool t1_j9om8h2 wrote

How can you be cost competitive with something that only exists as a far-fetched concept that absolutely no R&D has ever been done on?

That's about as useful as comparing the cost of an F-22 to an X-Wing

4

robertojh_200 t1_j9ormwi wrote

Because we know the physics of how an elevator will work and what sort of mass they could carry for how much energy. The actual development is the far future part but there’s been plenty of research.

5

JeffFromSchool t1_j9osfb2 wrote

The physics doesn't have anything to do with finances. Until some actual engineering is done, there is no projected cost for this. There is no prototype design, or even a realistic concept design.

You don't know how often parts are going to need to be replaced, or how much it will cost to build initially, you don't even know what parts are going into it!

4

cshotton t1_j9ozeoc wrote

With so many unknowns, you seem quite certain in your criticism.

2

NoFittingName t1_j9p701s wrote

Their criticism is exactly that: there are so many unknowns that a comparison is useless.

6

JeffFromSchool t1_j9p6xfc wrote

The only thing I'm certain of is that you can't be certain of the costs enough to be comparative.

With so many unknowns, how on earth can you say "damn, starship is cost competitive with space elevators"?

2

NerfSchlerfen t1_j9qdaij wrote

I'll rephrase. Cost competitive with our best estimate for a space elevator as we currently conceive it.

2

Niwi_ t1_j9or9rh wrote

Considering the arms lobby my money is on the X-Wing

1