this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
134 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
84866 readers
5221 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...
Well I don't think I agree with these statements at all. The thing is, if/when they get starship to work, not only will it be able to lift significantly more mass to orbit than the falcon 9, it will likely be cheaper per launch. Not cheaper per kg to orbit, but cheaper overall than launching a falcon 9 (remember, they need to build a new falcon second stage for each launch). That is such a significant improvement that I'd argue that its development is totally worthwhile even if the demand for launches were to stay stagnant.
And honestly, we definitely need some heavy lift rocket. The Saturn V doesn't exist anymore and the SLS is... economically unrealistic.
Yes but remember there is not currently much that needs that large of a rocket, and you get diminishing returns on rideshare. Major satellites are still likely to need private launches and there’s no point in buying a bigger launching you need.
Large rockets are currently needed
Current space economy has a use for maybe half a dozen launches per year. All that money developing re-use, building multiple launches per sites, a lot of the basic technology, is a waste, if that’s all we need.
Making back that excessive development cost, achieving that low launch price, entirely depends on there being sufficient market to launch many times per year. It’ll be revolutionary for sure, but only if
They’ve designed and built for scale, which will be amazing when it happens, but only if we scale dramatically.
I hear you that such a large rocket is not "needed" very often, but it can still be used. I believe the plan is to ramp down falcon 9 production and go to starship launches for everything, even smaller payloads, simply because it's cheaper and more sustainable. As long as they launch regularly, the price should still be lower than falcon 9. And at least on paper, it is more sustainable, burning methane results in cleaner exhaust than burning kerosene, the only major exhaust products are CO2 and water. And not letting an upper stage burn up or fall into the ocean is an ecological plus too.