[−]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 ?
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.