SpaceX’s strategy has been really questionable for a while.
Falcon Heavy has done 11 flights since 2018 and now they’re building an even larger platform despite heavy launch not really being a viable market segment. Starship has been slower than the now canceled SLS program run by Boing. If Starship succeeds it seems to guarantee than Falcon Heavy will have a negative ROI, but Starship needs to be wildly successful to have a positive ROI.
Starlink helps justify a high launch capacity, but isn’t in need of a heavy launch platform. A more reusable Falcon 9 would have simplified thermal issues, reduced R&D costs, and presumably increased profits much sooner. That IMO would have been a far better strategy than scaling, up while changing to a wildly different engine, and targeting increased reusability, etc.
> Falcon Heavy isn't relevant to anything SpaceX is doing with Starlink.
You misunderstood my point, Starlink only cares about lower cost per kg to LEO. Spaceship is trying to do that and increase payload capacity.
Spaceship trying to do both is a major reason its R&D costs are so high. Where Falcon heavy is relevant is it demonstrates that there’s little demand for Shapeship’s significant increase in cargo capacity. There’s little economic justification that paying for the size related added R&D complexity driving up both timelines and costs is going to be worth it.
> Seems you've never heard of creative destruction
I was arguing for creative destruction namely killing off all manufacturing of Falcon 9 rockets which would then make Falcon heavy non viable without the economies of scale on the first stage.
> The things they intend to do with Starship aren't possible with Falcon 9 or Heavy period
The things that depend on cost per kg could be accomplished with a NEW but smaller than Starship rocket that could already be in service if they had gone down a different path. The only thing they gain from its current size is the ability to send payloads of that size.
It’s not my money being wasted here, but I’d like SpaceX to be on better financial footing simply to reduce the risks to Starlink.
Falcon Heavy has done 11 flights since 2018 and now they’re building an even larger platform despite heavy launch not really being a viable market segment. Starship has been slower than the now canceled SLS program run by Boing. If Starship succeeds it seems to guarantee than Falcon Heavy will have a negative ROI, but Starship needs to be wildly successful to have a positive ROI.
Starlink helps justify a high launch capacity, but isn’t in need of a heavy launch platform. A more reusable Falcon 9 would have simplified thermal issues, reduced R&D costs, and presumably increased profits much sooner. That IMO would have been a far better strategy than scaling, up while changing to a wildly different engine, and targeting increased reusability, etc.