Space stations , space manufacturing, different kind of payload eg telescopes that are 10x bigger , you name it , oh and yeah mars , moon , asteroids etc . It all depends on how cheaper and bigger payload . 10x or 100x. If 100x this is new era for humanity
When I was a kid it was like $50k/lb to send something up? Now it's like $1200? That's a big deal.
[−]somenameforme · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:13 UTC ·
link
And the even more tantalizing thing is what comes next. You're right that that's a big deal, that's near to two orders of magnitude cost reductions! But on the other hand we're still in a scenario where it costs $1200 to send a 16oz bottle of water to space. So that means the amount of infrastructure that can be deployed out there is limited and mostly restricted to governments or small satellites for private usage.
Now bring it down two more magnitudes, which is the aspirational goal of Starship, and you're talking about a world where regular companies can start to deploy mass infrastructure to space. Suddenly, space as a domain for expansion and development becomes completely viable. That would completely revolutionize space, Earth, and humanity. It would be the official start of the next era of humanity.
[−]ExoticPearTree · 2026-11-15 Sun 03:39 UTC ·
link
Give it time. Maybe in the meantime new chemicals are discovered that make space flight cheaper. And new alloys to make the rocket lighter.
And who knows, maybe we discover The Expanse like reaction engines in a few decades.
[−]somenameforme · 2026-11-15 Sun 04:11 UTC ·
link
You're speaking of advances well beyond the two magnitudes more we need. This is what I think most people don't get about the concept of full reuse. Those two orders of magnitude are theoretically viable with Starship!
Starship spends around $1 million fuel to send around 100 tons to orbit. That's a baseline cost of $10/kg. But if we get truly aspirational then fuel costs can be significantly reduced through greater vertical integration, and the later block models already are looking at bumping the payload up to 200 tons.
You obviously need some margin to account for maintenance after each flight, but the cost of the rocket itself rapidly amortizes to something near $0 with sufficient reuse. So something around $10/kg is a completely viable aspirational goal with current tech.
And if we get anywhere in the ballpark of that $10 then Starship is going to be at least a big of a revolution in space as LLMs were in the digital/cognitive world. Wild time to be alive!
[−]ExoticPearTree · 2026-11-15 Sun 07:22 UTC ·
link
I was reading in the comments that the rocket itself is made of steel. What if they manage to build it out of a lighter alloy that has the same or better properties when it comes to going and coming back from space?
What if, considering how SpaceX simplified rocket engine design figures out that, i don't know, adding a little bit of ammonia to the mix, makes the engines perform 10% better? Or 15%? Obviously not a rocket expert, but I don't think we (as a species) experimented with all the possible combinations of chemical compounds to get the best possible output to make a rocket get to space.
I us a lot of what IFs, because in the past few years we've made technological jumps that prior to that it would have taken us decades.
Read “Ignition!” by John D Clark. The field of chemical propulsion is far more mature than you realise, there are no more basic ‘whatifs’ like your hypotheticals.
> I don't think we (as a species) experimented with all the possible combinations of chemical compounds to get the best possible output to make a rocket get to space.
What makes you think that? That's a nice thing to think but mostly comes out of ignorance of the field.
[−]ExoticPearTree · 2026-11-15 Sun 15:42 UTC ·
link
Because we don't know everything. We find out each day new things about chemistry, the universe and so on.
When it comes to rockets, yes, I have zero knowledge beyond the basic functioning of one. On the other hand, I look at how the Raptor engines were simplified to make them more reliable, with fewer failures and so on. And my gut says they are not yet with enhancing their performance and reliability.
I may not know much about chemistry, but, call me ignorant, I don't think we discovered all the combinations between elements in order to ignite something or make it go boom.
Like with fusion reactors, in theory they work, in practice we haven't figured out how to initiate a reaction and keep it stable "forever".
More progress will come, at a much faster rate than ever before.
Yeah that’s just wrong. For chemical propulsion we no exactly what sort of valence arrangement of electrons and mass of combustion exhaust products is optimal for getting the most acceleration for your reaction rate. It’s mostly because simpler is better (eg if pure hydrogen could be a combustion product it would he impossible to improve on that). More complex molecules will be strictly worse than anything we know about already. As you said yourself, you know nothing abour rockets or chemistry. Read the book everyone has been recommending.
What alloy would that be? Aluminum? Doesn't have the temperature tolerance. Titanium? Nightmarish to manufacture and expensive. Composites? Temperature intolerance and they tried it; not robust.
Stainless steel lets the structure get very hot on entry without failure, beyond the temperature where aluminum alloys would lose substantial strength. This reduces heat shielding requirements.
The sky is the limit really. The shape and design is sound so now you can test all sorts of options. Internal frames to buttress the structure. Mixed materials. Composites. You name it. Steel is super easy and cheap for prototypes but if you know you can get the ship back you can play with all sorts of variables.
Starship built with new alloys and promises to deliver everything expected. I’m wondering what’s next for spacex beyond starship . It will take 5 years to squeeze all the possibilities from current design(s). What will be next 10x ?
[−]helterskelter2 · 2026-11-15 Sun 05:38 UTC ·
link
> a world where regular companies can start to deploy mass infrastructure to space
If we don't start becoming much more careful, I expect we'll live to see the Kessler syndrome, perhaps sooner than we expect.
[−]somenameforme · 2026-11-15 Sun 06:19 UTC ·
link
Well how are we going to have big problems to solve if we don't create them!? Snark aside, Kessler syndrome is probably 100% inevitable. Even ignoring development, there's geopolitics. Modern warfare heavily depends on eyes in the sky, and so on day 1 of direct war between two great powers, stuff in space is going to start going pop.
Fortunately it's not as bad as most think. You'd still be 100% capable of launching stuff into space, and even orbital rotations would still be viable, even if it would require more active maneuvering. It's not like it creates a giant impassable shield over Earth that'd just blot out the sky, but more like the odds of a collision per year on a given orbit would tend to increase dramatically.
And the biggest risk would be in stuff quite close to Earth since that's where it'd be the most energetic/fastest, and also where there's the least amount of space meaning the odds of a collision are relatively greatest. Fortunately, that's also the domain where drag is the greatest and where particles would most rapidly end up falling into the atmosphere and burning up, so the worst of it would clean itself up naturally on reasonably short timeframes, like days to months.
Low earth orbit can't sustain a Kessler syndrome for more than a few years. Atmospheric drag is too large. (And it gets proportionally larger for smaller fragments.)
Perhaps, but that's country club problems for their lifespan. I think pollution on earth is a much more worthy issue to allocate resources towards. A lot of Earth's problems won't solve themselves with time.
Starlink is a big deal so I wouldn't discount it. It's significantly expanded the satellite networking market. It's also a key military asset.
Aside from that the F9 rideshare missions have made space accessible to a whole new class of space startup that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Prior to F9 there was no competition in the US market. The result was government customers paid ULA through the nose. Commercial customers largely used Ariane. F9 saved the government money directly but also forced other launchers to lower their prices.
The current list price of Falcon-9 flight at 74 millions is a third more than what Russia used to charge for commercial payloads. Production cost of Russian rocket is below 15M USD and probably was below 10M at the peak of Russian comercial services. This is comparable with Falcon-9 amortized cost per flight.
Also don't forget what a state their launch facilities are in. Just because they could do something before does not mean they can do it now. They haven't invested properly in their infrastructure.
Wouldn’t this imply the SpaceX costs need to adjust for the infrastructure they didn’t pay for? Not slighting them, just acknowledging an apples to apples comparison is hard
You can't compare rocket vs rocket. Cheap Russian rockets are way smaller. Falcon 9 destroyed their market even before it was reusable.
You are also missing that Falcon 9 costs as much as costumers pay, SpaceX internal cost are significantly less. They just don't have competition to make it cheaper.
With price per kg to orbit dropping, you can afford much more off-the-shelf components for satellites and using more cheap and redundant parts, instead of high quality bespoke stuff.
Only if SpaceX can work out how to get it out of Starship. It is not as trivial as it sounds, and so far they have shown no inclination to work on the problem.
[−]actionfromafar · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:42 UTC ·
link
They could if they wanted to but for now it seems optimized to poop out little bom... sorry I mean little Starlinks.
Part of the problem was that there wasn't a second provider. I think Blue Origin getting into orbit will be a bigger game changer for launch prices than Starship, because it'll introduce competition into the market.
[−]daniel_iversen · 2026-11-15 Sun 10:17 UTC ·
link
Not sure why the parent is being downvoted. Nobody in the comments seem to say anything else than "because Starlink" and a vague "new space startups". I'm a simple retail investor in SpaceX and love it just for Starlink and AI and then it's nice that they'll take humanity to Mars etc, but I was always dubious about how much money and growth would be in generic space cargo business and I fear if NASA stops having big contracts for them then it's a big impact on that side of the business. Would love to hear others' point of view on that! (one angle might be that they can use the current gravy train of NASA and Starlink and what not to invest in rapidly reusable rockets and once they're an order of magnitude cheaper then the future space cargo business doesn't have to be so large?)
Well we should be able to get SpaceShuttle size/tonnage cargo into space again, and on a re-usable platform.
To put it bluntly, rocketry has been stagnant for a while. The spaceshuttle never really got design iterations because politicians wanted prestige more than results.
We will start to see chinese/european copycats of starship, the same way there are many orgs trying to replicate Falcon 9. That is in my opinion kicking us into a new age. The launch cadence of SpaceX just with Falcon/FalconHeavy is already unprecedented as it is.
Multiple orgs chasing starship, and starting a new spacerace. That is what I hope for.
The politicians didn't want prestige, they wanted pork barrel spending going to certain voters. Prestige was just the mechanism to keep the pork flowing.
Starlink is big enough that the military is now concerned SpaceX and NASA won’t have the capacity to launch their payloads in the coming years - seems like there is enough demand!
Starlink is huge, a market many times larger than Falcon 9 launch and Falcon 9 cannot launch Starlink satellites fast enough to keep up with current demand, build for future demand, and maintain a constellation of (already) over 10,000 satellites.
SpaceX has contracts with NASA committing SpaceX to manned lunar missions, soon. Falcon 9 cannot do that.
Long term (5-10 yrs) SpaceX will almost certainly send these to Mars and return them home. Falcon 9 cannot do that.
Now bring it down two more magnitudes, which is the aspirational goal of Starship, and you're talking about a world where regular companies can start to deploy mass infrastructure to space. Suddenly, space as a domain for expansion and development becomes completely viable. That would completely revolutionize space, Earth, and humanity. It would be the official start of the next era of humanity.
And who knows, maybe we discover The Expanse like reaction engines in a few decades.
Starship spends around $1 million fuel to send around 100 tons to orbit. That's a baseline cost of $10/kg. But if we get truly aspirational then fuel costs can be significantly reduced through greater vertical integration, and the later block models already are looking at bumping the payload up to 200 tons.
You obviously need some margin to account for maintenance after each flight, but the cost of the rocket itself rapidly amortizes to something near $0 with sufficient reuse. So something around $10/kg is a completely viable aspirational goal with current tech.
And if we get anywhere in the ballpark of that $10 then Starship is going to be at least a big of a revolution in space as LLMs were in the digital/cognitive world. Wild time to be alive!
What if, considering how SpaceX simplified rocket engine design figures out that, i don't know, adding a little bit of ammonia to the mix, makes the engines perform 10% better? Or 15%? Obviously not a rocket expert, but I don't think we (as a species) experimented with all the possible combinations of chemical compounds to get the best possible output to make a rocket get to space.
I us a lot of what IFs, because in the past few years we've made technological jumps that prior to that it would have taken us decades.
Indeed, wild time to be alive.
What makes you think that? That's a nice thing to think but mostly comes out of ignorance of the field.
When it comes to rockets, yes, I have zero knowledge beyond the basic functioning of one. On the other hand, I look at how the Raptor engines were simplified to make them more reliable, with fewer failures and so on. And my gut says they are not yet with enhancing their performance and reliability.
I may not know much about chemistry, but, call me ignorant, I don't think we discovered all the combinations between elements in order to ignite something or make it go boom.
Like with fusion reactors, in theory they work, in practice we haven't figured out how to initiate a reaction and keep it stable "forever".
More progress will come, at a much faster rate than ever before.
https://www.amazon.com/Ignition-Informal-Propellants-Univers...
Stainless steel lets the structure get very hot on entry without failure, beyond the temperature where aluminum alloys would lose substantial strength. This reduces heat shielding requirements.
If we don't start becoming much more careful, I expect we'll live to see the Kessler syndrome, perhaps sooner than we expect.
Fortunately it's not as bad as most think. You'd still be 100% capable of launching stuff into space, and even orbital rotations would still be viable, even if it would require more active maneuvering. It's not like it creates a giant impassable shield over Earth that'd just blot out the sky, but more like the odds of a collision per year on a given orbit would tend to increase dramatically.
And the biggest risk would be in stuff quite close to Earth since that's where it'd be the most energetic/fastest, and also where there's the least amount of space meaning the odds of a collision are relatively greatest. Fortunately, that's also the domain where drag is the greatest and where particles would most rapidly end up falling into the atmosphere and burning up, so the worst of it would clean itself up naturally on reasonably short timeframes, like days to months.
I guess that gives the rebels time to organise for the next wave of fragmentation and shrapnel launches.
Aside from that the F9 rideshare missions have made space accessible to a whole new class of space startup that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Prior to F9 there was no competition in the US market. The result was government customers paid ULA through the nose. Commercial customers largely used Ariane. F9 saved the government money directly but also forced other launchers to lower their prices.
That and the Russians. But SpaceX is cheaper than both of them.
You are also missing that Falcon 9 costs as much as costumers pay, SpaceX internal cost are significantly less. They just don't have competition to make it cheaper.
With price per kg to orbit dropping, you can afford much more off-the-shelf components for satellites and using more cheap and redundant parts, instead of high quality bespoke stuff.
To put it bluntly, rocketry has been stagnant for a while. The spaceshuttle never really got design iterations because politicians wanted prestige more than results.
We will start to see chinese/european copycats of starship, the same way there are many orgs trying to replicate Falcon 9. That is in my opinion kicking us into a new age. The launch cadence of SpaceX just with Falcon/FalconHeavy is already unprecedented as it is.
Multiple orgs chasing starship, and starting a new spacerace. That is what I hope for.
SpaceX has contracts with NASA committing SpaceX to manned lunar missions, soon. Falcon 9 cannot do that.
Long term (5-10 yrs) SpaceX will almost certainly send these to Mars and return them home. Falcon 9 cannot do that.