Putting Starship's power into context

[lamontagne]

In a similar vein, if Spacex is valued at 200 billion$, and Musk and private individuals own 60% of it, it leaves 80 billion as part of stock owned by publicly traded companies.
Famously, 1% of the people own 50% of everything, 80/2 = 40.  Therefore 40 billion$ is owned by ordinary people.
Since the US population is 330 million people, and 60+% of these have a retirement plan, about 200 000 000 people have a stake in SpaceX, and this stake is, on average,  40 000 / 200 = 200$.
My guess is that if you have a technologically orientated portfolio for growth, then your stake is significantly higher.

So that's what in it for you. And if SpaceX does well and multiplies its value by 10 in the reasonably near future, then it's 1800$ easy dollars for your old age.

Admittedly, this is something of a spherical cow financial analysis ...

Hardly my domain of expertise  .  Does it make sense?  Is it more or less in the correct ballpark?

[DanClemmensen]

In a similar vein, if Spacex is valued at 200 billion$, and Musk and private individuals own 60% of it, it leaves 80 billion as part of stock owned by publicly traded companies.
Famously, 1% of the people own 50% of everything, 80/2 = 40.  Therefore 40 billion$ is owned by ordinary people.
Since the US population is 330 million people, and 60+% of these have a retirement plan, about 200 000 000 people have a stake in SpaceX, and this stake is, on average,  40 000 / 200 = 200$.
My guess is that if you have a technologically orientated portfolio for growth, then your stake is significantly higher.

So that's what in it for you. And if SpaceX does well and multiplies its value by 10 in the reasonably near future, then it's 1800$ easy dollars for your old age.

Admittedly, this is something of a spherical cow financial analysis ...

Hardly my domain of expertise  .  Does it make sense?  Is it more or less in the correct ballpark?

Probably not. I think SpaceX is privately held and its shock is not traded on any exchange. The shared are "restricted" in the SEC sense of the term. This usually means that publicly traded companies have very few ways to purchase them.
    https://stockanalysis.com/article/invest-in-spacex-stock/

[pjm1]

In a similar vein, if Spacex is valued at 200 billion$, and Musk and private individuals own 60% of it, it leaves 80 billion as part of stock owned by publicly traded companies.
Famously, 1% of the people own 50% of everything, 80/2 = 40.  Therefore 40 billion$ is owned by ordinary people.
Since the US population is 330 million people, and 60+% of these have a retirement plan, about 200 000 000 people have a stake in SpaceX, and this stake is, on average,  40 000 / 200 = 200$.
My guess is that if you have a technologically orientated portfolio for growth, then your stake is significantly higher.

So that's what in it for you. And if SpaceX does well and multiplies its value by 10 in the reasonably near future, then it's 1800$ easy dollars for your old age.

Admittedly, this is something of a spherical cow financial analysis ...

Hardly my domain of expertise  .  Does it make sense?  Is it more or less in the correct ballpark?

Probably not. I think SpaceX is privately held and its shock is not traded on any exchange. The shared are "restricted" in the SEC sense of the term. This usually means that publicly traded companies have very few ways to purchase them.
    https://stockanalysis.com/article/invest-in-spacex-stock/

This.

But, ironically, it may mean the holdings are spread far wider.  Certain large equity funds (such as Baillie Gifford here in the UK) are investors in private companies like SpaceX, and pension funds and other asset managers who represent "normal" people worldwide and want exposure to their "asset class" may then invest in their fund(s).

That would probably mean the 300 million population is far, far larger in reality, given the 1st world flows of capital.

But think we're drifting well off topic, to be honest!

[ZachF]

Power is a great metric, but another useful one is energy.  Yes, Starship uses the same power as France or GB, but for all of seven minutes.

It's actually only a little over two minutes...  Starship's upper stage power is only about 1/5th that of Superheavy booster.

And yes, there's 525,600 minutes in a year (I had to sing the song from "Rent" in music class back in the day, so I remember that number pretty well, lol), so it doesn't use a lot of energy in total. Even launching Starship 10,000 times a year uses ~1/25th what France does.

It's just an interesting factoid that it's as powerful as a large European country for that short time. You can literally *see* how loud it is when it launches.

[ZachF]

...I prefer this argument when I try to convince people that space exploration isn't a tremendous waste of energy.  Which can be difficult when you only have the power values.

And the instant response is that the coal and methane power plants are actually doing something useful, whereas the SS...

I know, I know. Just saying that the people the infographic works for are the ones who are already convinced. The real problem is not showing the amount of power/energy/etc. produced in terms that they can understand, it's showing them that it has value for them. And since pretty much everyone on the planet has lived their entire lives without SS, the benefit is hard to make tangible at the moment. (The only real benefit for most of humanity so far has been entertainment value, at least for the minority paying attention.)

I'd reply that your counter argument is in bad faith, since it shifts the goal posts to a very different subject, being the use of SS and not it's low impact on the energy demand of the country and minimum amount of pollution.
On the question of cost, I've got another infographic...

SS is already useful to thousands of workers at SpaceX and by extension to a all of their suppliers.  It has already started creating spin offs that will ripple through the US economy, and doing this in a much more cost efficient way that the military, for example.   At a minimum, it will make Starlink cheaper soon, if it succeeds.  It's part of the Space Economy, which is useful per se.

Once the military realizes what it can do with <$100/kg to LEO, very rapidly a country's Space sector will become the largest determinant of international power.

Just think about this: The US military budget is nearly a trillion dollars. At $50/kg to LEO cost, spending 5% of the budget on spacelift gives the military an annual payload budget of a million tonnes per year. That's roughly equal to the combined size of the US Navy's 11 100,000 tonne nuclear-power supercarriers.

Space is the ultimate high ground.

[lamontagne]

Power is a great metric, but another useful one is energy.  Yes, Starship uses the same power as France or GB, but for all of seven minutes.

It's actually only a little over two minutes...  Starship's upper stage power is only about 1/5th that of Superheavy booster.

And yes, there's 525,600 minutes in a year (I had to sing the song from "Rent" in music class back in the day, so I remember that number pretty well, lol), so it doesn't use a lot of energy in total. Even launching Starship 10,000 times a year uses ~1/25th what France does.

It's just an interesting factoid that it's as powerful as a large European country for that short time. You can literally *see* how loud it is when it launches.

Indeed, two minutes only.  I used to read the Guiness Book of world records with the greatest of interest, before the Internet...

[lamontagne]

...I prefer this argument when I try to convince people that space exploration isn't a tremendous waste of energy.  Which can be difficult when you only have the power values.

And the instant response is that the coal and methane power plants are actually doing something useful, whereas the SS...

I know, I know. Just saying that the people the infographic works for are the ones who are already convinced. The real problem is not showing the amount of power/energy/etc. produced in terms that they can understand, it's showing them that it has value for them. And since pretty much everyone on the planet has lived their entire lives without SS, the benefit is hard to make tangible at the moment. (The only real benefit for most of humanity so far has been entertainment value, at least for the minority paying attention.)

I'd reply that your counter argument is in bad faith, since it shifts the goal posts to a very different subject, being the use of SS and not it's low impact on the energy demand of the country and minimum amount of pollution.
On the question of cost, I've got another infographic...

SS is already useful to thousands of workers at SpaceX and by extension to a all of their suppliers.  It has already started creating spin offs that will ripple through the US economy, and doing this in a much more cost efficient way that the military, for example.   At a minimum, it will make Starlink cheaper soon, if it succeeds.  It's part of the Space Economy, which is useful per se.

Once the military realizes what it can do with <$100/kg to LEO, very rapidly a country's Space sector will become the largest determinant of international power.

Just think about this: The US military budget is nearly a trillion dollars. At $50/kg to LEO cost, spending 5% of the budget on spacelift gives the military an annual payload budget of a million tonnes per year. That's roughly equal to the combined size of the US Navy's 11 100,000 tonne nuclear-power supercarriers.

Space is the ultimate high ground.

I believe this was realized decades ago, hence the the 'Outer Space Treaty'.  And the de-escalation that treaty created is one of the reasons space 'progress' slowed down (and that we area all still alive).  The major economical incentive (or market?) was removed.  I'm hoping the power of the SS makes peaceful applications possible, rather than it will be used to increase military spending.

[Robotbeat]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

[Robotbeat]

When the US military orders logistics services from commercial jetliners, they pay on the order of $75/kg for an equivalent of an antipodal distance, so comparable to $50/kg for very long haul.

[lamontagne]

In a similar vein, if Spacex is valued at 200 billion$, and Musk and private individuals own 60% of it, it leaves 80 billion as part of stock owned by publicly traded companies.
Famously, 1% of the people own 50% of everything, 80/2 = 40.  Therefore 40 billion$ is owned by ordinary people.
Since the US population is 330 million people, and 60+% of these have a retirement plan, about 200 000 000 people have a stake in SpaceX, and this stake is, on average,  40 000 / 200 = 200$.
My guess is that if you have a technologically orientated portfolio for growth, then your stake is significantly higher.

So that's what in it for you. And if SpaceX does well and multiplies its value by 10 in the reasonably near future, then it's 1800$ easy dollars for your old age.

Admittedly, this is something of a spherical cow financial analysis ...

Hardly my domain of expertise  .  Does it make sense?  Is it more or less in the correct ballpark?

Probably not. I think SpaceX is privately held and its shock is not traded on any exchange. The shared are "restricted" in the SEC sense of the term. This usually means that publicly traded companies have very few ways to purchase them.
    https://stockanalysis.com/article/invest-in-spacex-stock/

This.

But, ironically, it may mean the holdings are spread far wider.  Certain large equity funds (such as Baillie Gifford here in the UK) are investors in private companies like SpaceX, and pension funds and other asset managers who represent "normal" people worldwide and want exposure to their "asset class" may then invest in their fund(s).

That would probably mean the 300 million population is far, far larger in reality, given the 1st world flows of capital.

But think we're drifting well off topic, to be honest!

So we are!  I'll adjust my cow a little then, to see how robust it is.  I think I can safely put Musk in the 1% (42% of SpaceX).  And Founder's fund (10% of SpaceX) is also owned by the 1%.  That's 50% of Spacex in the hands of the 1%. Fidelity and Google however are definitively in the open market, and that's 17% of 200 or 34 billions.  I expect pension funds and others have some venture capital and can access SpaceX shares by various means.  so I think my 40b stands.
Now if I add in my other graph the US is 25% of world GDP.  So my 200$ per retirement fund might be divided down to 50$ per retirement fund.  So down by about half an order of magnitude.  So it's a small stake, but it has some growth potential.
And I guess we can leave this sidebranch die here.

[lamontagne]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

[edzieba]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

[Oersted]

Starship is early technology, it still has a big efficiency-growth potential, in my book. Do airliners?

[lamontagne]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

Liquid methane is significantly cheaper than jet fuel, I believe.  Oxygen costs are also fairly low, in large quantities, so just the cost of fuel might be enough to justify Starship?
Trying to stay on topic at least a little bit, I wonder if there is a smaller size, with lower power, that still delivers useful payloads over long distances.  Starship is optimized for Mars, after all.  The lower the power, the smaller the required infrastructures?

[LouScheffer]

Consider comparing it to something you can get close to.  Here is the fountain in Lake Geneva, throwing 500 kg of water about 140 meters up, with about 7 tonnes in the air at one time.  The pumps alone from a single Raptor engine can throw more than twice the mass many times higher (the pressure is about 20x as much).   That entire mass flow is a flammable mixture of methane and LOX that burns as quickly as the fountain can shoot it out.   And that's just one of 33 engines.

[InterestedEngineer]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

since when did the Pentagon care about costs?

that being said, getting stuff there in 1 hour vs 1 day makes a huge difference militarily speaking.

And since energy = 1/2mv², getting it there 10x faster is going to take 100x the energy.

[meekGee]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

since when did the Pentagon care about costs?

that being said, getting stuff there in 1 hour vs 1 day makes a huge difference militarily speaking.

And since energy = 1/2mv², getting it there 10x faster is going to take 100x the energy.

That last bit is not correct.


A helicopter hovering in place for one hour with v=0 doesn't use zero energy.

Consider that the airplane is maintaining altitude against a 1 g gravity field for 10-20 hours, plus pushing aside a large mass of air.  (Due to aerodynamics, it's not a 1 g gravity drag, but only a partial, but still)

A p2p rocket pays little by way of gravity and aero drag, but the v-square term applies both to the rocket and to the exhaust.

In short, it's a lot more complicated than comparing v2, you'd do best accepting the size of the tanks of the two vehicles.

[ZachF]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

Those fuel numbers look like a future SS variant. Also if you�re calculating energy content in a rocket you need to realize that ~10% of the methane is used for remass instead of for energy.

747-400 holds 216,400 liters of fuel, which is ~177 tonnes. 177 tonnes of kerosene  costs similar to 1,000 tonnes of methane. That�s $150,000-$200,000 of fuel.

NG is only $4/mbtu in the US, so that�s like $200k in methane. Lox is pretty dirt cheap too. I think $7/tonnes is an old number, but that�s only $6k (!!) to fill Starship.

[edzieba]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

Those fuel numbers look like a future SS variant.

Yes, that's why I specified Starship V2.

Also if you�re calculating energy content in a rocket you need to realize that ~10% of the methane is used for remass instead of for energy.

Doesn't matter: whether it's for heating, remass (100% the LCH4 and LOX are eventually remass, unless you manage to vent it with 0 velocity somehow) or just burnt to make a pretty flame to admire, that propellant is still stored energy, which is what is being compared. You could compare fuel mas or volume, but since the two use different fuels that makes for a rather worthless comparison, so stored energy it is.

[novo2044]

The OST doesn't block space from being used for military logistics, ala rocket cargo.

Absolutely.  So there is an interesting point to be made here about the efficiency of rockets, because we often hear about how inefficient rockets are, but for certain trips that does not seem to be that important.  I guess that overall that means that the energy cost of Starship over a long distance is comparable to that of aircraft engines flying through atmospheric drag?

Full stack Starship V2 + Super Heavy LCH4 load = 1,115,000kg
LCH4 specific energy = 55.6 MJ/kg
Full stack energy = ~62 TJ

A 747-400 covers around 0.0021m/kJ, or 2.1 m/MJ.

Breakeven between Starship and a 747-400 would be after covering ~60,000km. Since that is greater than the circumference of the Earth, and the 747-400 is far from the most fuel-efficient jet aircraft, Starship is probably not going to be beating turbofans on energy efficiency - let alone once fuel costs are taken into account, or the cost of LOX, or external costs of operating airports vs operating spaceports spread across numbers of flights...

since when did the Pentagon care about costs?

that being said, getting stuff there in 1 hour vs 1 day makes a huge difference militarily speaking.

And since energy = 1/2mv², getting it there 10x faster is going to take 100x the energy.

I always thought the DoD might just put stuff in LEO at a relatively leisurely pace until specific latitudes were covered by reflights every 5-10 minutes.  They don�t even have to tell anyone what it is.  It could be blocks of concrete.  I wouldn�t want to try say an amphibious invasion if someone had thousands of metric tons of <unspecified> they could rain down on me. Would be very expensive to try to take them out too if they have reliable reusable SHLVs.  The economic equation starts getting weird when things get that cheap