> SpaceX is building spaceport with 10 pads or something like this. At 1 Starship/pad per day that 1000 tons/day to LEO - i.e. 1 year.
When you making forecasts that assume success, they're generally over-optimistic.
So, here, if they launch 1 Starship per pad per day from 10 pads. And also if they double the current capacity per launch because the demonstrated launch capacity right now has "only" been 44 tons. (44 would be impressive! It's just that Musk's pronouncements are nowhere near what gets delivered).
> The Starship is making great progress. Even if it takes 10 years to once-a-day reusability, the need will be even greater by then.
Reality check: we're 14 launches in and development is so slow that we're more than 10 years past when he said he'd be sending things to Mars within two years and it's only just now managed to get a circular orbit.
Getting there from here requires funding at the intermediate cost, not the final cost. That means they have to spend order-of 300-400 billion dollars, which means they have to raise that many billion dollars in capital, which is around 4x times the 86 billion they actually raised in their IPO (not trillions: market cap is what you get if you could sell all the shares, and they didn't do that).
This is, inflation-adjusted, around 1.5 times the Apollo mission. Since this whole thing began, the development process has been slower and more expensive than the actual Saturn V launch program.
Right now, SpaceX needs more financing rounds to cover their existing spending commitments. Some of this has nothing to do with going to space, thanks to them having merged with xAI and the AI spending spree.
> tech moves faster with each iteration, and datacenters and networks only grow with it. The ground-based datacenters has and will continue to grow in cost. While space-based costs will be cheaper and cheaper. Not the first time we have 2 such curves, and such curves dynamics usually leads to paradigm shift.
False. Any argument that "datacenters and networks only grow with it" applies regardless of where those datacenters are placed, ground or space.
They get more expensive in proportion to how much compute you have, and less in proportion to the tech of the processors themselves; but place is irrelevant to the compute tech, price of location only shifts with regard to the transport.
Why this matters:
Applying Koomey's law for 10 years makes any give unit of compute 14 times more energy efficient, so what was once a 1kW data centre GPU becomes a 70 watt laptop integrated graphics processor, and what was once limited to the 70 watt power envelope of a laptop becomes the default performance of a bargain basement phone.
Also, the models seem to still be getting more efficient at fixed parameter count, so model performance which can be had on your phone today would have needed hundreds of gigabytes and a beefy GPU just a few years back.
Either by themselves, let alone both, means it's quite plausible that all the data centre investment, both on the ground and in space, is worthless within a decade.