You interview the best guests Ellie. Ozan's ideas on the future economics of Starship are so interesting.

Great interview and commentary. The cost breakdown perspective, especially with the talk of 200 ton payloads, expendable starships and expendable raptors. That was great info to hear.

Thanks for an excellent interview, Ellie! Ozan's analysis and explanation Starship's cost parameters is the best that I've seen so far, and tracks well with my own back-of-the-envelope calculations. In addition, as Ozan accurately points out, Starship's architecture and flexible stainless steel manufacturing methods lends itself to fairly easily producing variants such as partially re-usable versions. Such a version could be used for lofting extremely large 200+ ton payloads into low earth orbit or to send payloads into the high energy trajectories needed for deep space/planetary missions (where re-use of the upper stage is not possible).

Since you let me click over as the 100th like Ellie, I have also clicked Subscribe. Love your work on here and with Jessie and Zac. 😊

this was long but very interesting for me so i didnt skip any of the presentation I may be older than some at 76 but i love to see the resurgence of interest in space tech, its a fun thing for me, you are doing very well at interviews and just new things to ponder keep up the good work

From an old saying: if you have to ask what a rocket costs, you can't afford it. 🙂

You do a great job, especially considering you didn't start out as space nerd or engineer. Its almost as if you have some magic choosing the right people to interview. I believe the 3rd starship launch will be this month around the time of my 70th birthday. When I was in the 2nd grade we got to watch John Glenn take off for his orbital spaceflight. In the evening my dad took me outside and we watched the little star moving across the sky that was the space capsule with John Glenn inside. Although it was ( I think two) very low LEO, it seemed to me that man had finally flown among the stars. I was hooked. As the years and decades after the moon landings faded into my past as the disappointments grew and grew. There were some unmanned high points, but I wanted to see humans in space. Yes, the ISS and Shuttle program stirred up some hope, but soon fizzled out as being an expensive taxi to and from the ISS. Then along came Elon. Before, or around the time Elon was born, I was into slot cars (electric powered by brushes running against the two poles embedded in the race tracks). When Elon came out with the electric roadster, it was pretty cool, but I couldn't see buying one that cost more than buying a house. When he came out with the Model S I began paying a bit more attention to the man and his companies. Then Space X came out of seemingly nowhere, then the Boring Company and later Neural Link. It has become an exciting time to be alive, even with the potential threat and/or benefits of AI or general AI. This means I am going to have to live at least another 30 healthy years if I want to see some of the short term outcomes of all the new tech bubbling up from the minds of men and women like Elon. At the age of 19, I decided I was going to live to be 140 based on the advancements I was seeing in medical technologies and research. I would be cool to find out that my life is only half lived so far, and who knows?

Most enjoyable interview thanks. It’s great to get non-specialist who deep dives - not so different to how Musk got into rockets himself!

Interesting interview -- love the physics-y breakdowns!

So informative thank you!!

Top notch young lady, top notch!

i havent seen them explore all there options for landing the first stage. they could make a 300ft deep pool of fresh water and land it in that. As long as the water is de mineralized it should work. have a crane lift it out. put it on a trailer ,send it to the launch pad.

Ellie well done! THis is serious space journalism. I learned a lot watching this.

Great interviews.

Keep up the great work Ellie! As I keep saying, the Apollo program had many failures, everything in the Apollo program was tested to failure before they even rolled it out onto the pad. It was a different time back then so the US government did not want to show tanks exploding and rocket engines exploding. As far as the FAA they need to deal solely with flight and flight characteristics. Environmental impacts are done by the EPA.

Good interview lots of patience.

Again, some great interviews with very good ideas. As for launch day, I'm in the Pi day crowd.

Typically, it takes a manager to keep track of costs. Most people aren't managers, and they aren't educated, so they only see failures. One of the flukes of running a business is the overhead costs can be removed from some contracts. This allows them to undersell the competition to the point the competition deletes themselves from existence. If the big contracts pay for the overhead for multiple launches, this is a great plan. I want to see how the payload fits into all that fuel! This craft is so big, it is a flying fuel tank.

The best lobbyist in DC share both sides of a problem in order to show how their solution is the best. Would love to hear more perspectives.

I chatted with another commentor that did spreadsheets, to compare my calculation of the cost to build a Starship. This was about 4 years ago. We came to the production cost of US$30million. Given that a Booster is fore-cast to be used up to 50+ times, and the main variations will be the Starships, some of which are going to be only 1 way trips, you would expect the main cost that has to be covered to make a launch viable, would have to be at least the cost of a Starship and Booster/50, plus the costs to launch (Fuel and Mission Control cost and compliance costs). What the extra costs are, I have no idea. But if a Falcon 9 is US$62million to launch, then Starship System has to be that plus a bit more, with a bigger propellant load. So lets say around US$62million + US$30million = US$92million and add some more for all the things I have not taken into consideration. US$102million, has to be a base line amount per launch I feel. So cost to launch a 150,000kg (150 tonne current maximum payload) = US$680/kilo, which is cheap compared to current prices of around US$2,720/kg. But that is only if you use the maximum payload weight. Half the weight is still cheap. Given that a weather satellite costs around US$290million to make, the launch cost is less than half of the value. But since you could fit about 3-4 of these into a Starship, that becomes a crazily cheap price, however, they would most likely have to go into a GeoSynchronous orbit to say 35,000km. So some of the weight will be fuel, to raise it's orbit. Not that satellite manufacturers had the option of adding fuel tanks before. As we all can see, it's going to be a real 'game changer' and I don't even think we have thought what we could launch, that weighs 150 tonnes, because it has never been available before. And what can you fit in a cylindrical 8m X 8m space with an added 8m tapering to 1.8m diameter? No ones had to think about that before. What a great time to be watching Space development. I love it!

Interesting perspective on Starship. SpaceX is always innovating 📡🛰️🚀

Pi day would be great however I think it might be later.

Nice work Ellie! 🙌🏼 Scoring big interviews with those who've got the inside scoop!

THANKS ELLI GREAT CONVERSATION ✌️

There would probably never be a need for a very strong moon pad for take off of, as the escape velocity is way less with the help of 1/6 gravity pull. So that must mean that it would also require much less push from the rockets.

Maravilha grata por poder assistir sucesso sempre no aguardo dos próximos favor libere o campo da legenda para poder acompanhar melhor

I’m expecting SpaceX operations to evolve into routine rendezvous with an orbiting station which 1))) extracts payloads and preps them for release, 2))) splits a one way starship into usable steel construction material for the space station and a return payload module of it’s raptors plus pumps plus electrical boxes that fits inside a round trip starship cargo bay after the round trip starship is emptied of its payload. 3))) prepping the round trip starship for return.

Getting enough water to have a water deluge system on the moon can be a challenge. But I don’t know if it’s needed? The ship has been launched before against a concrete pad needing small refurbishment, the booster is much more thrust but won’t be used on the moon.

When things do not go as planned or hoped, it becomes a lesson to learn from. That is SpaceX's plan.

To practice catch landings a hopper craft is needed, with legs that unfold after failed trys and its test flights, and with pins to be caught by arms. Ships and boosters can safely come after practice. I don't see why this idea hasn't gotten around.

When Elon has a Starship tanker in low earth orbit, there will never be an expendable upper stage Starship launch anymore.

$100 million for 100 tons to orbit would be an awesome low delivery cost of $500 per pound. $20 million would be $100 per pound. There’s gonna be some big new markets including replacing all microwave towers with direct satellite to cell phone links, orbiting solar energy delivered to earth using mile wide microwave antennas, and more.

Sometimes Government contracts include amortization costs where the company assumes development costs will be spread over 10 separate contracts and charges accordingly.

Ellie in Space interviewed two guys who know what they are talking about. They talked about how, after the second launch of the Starship, SpaceX had less than half the things to fix than they had after the first launch. Hopefully, after the third launch, SpaceX won’t have anything to fix because it needs to reach orbit… If the third launch of Starship reaches orbit and both the Booster and second stage hover to burn off the extra fuel and show that the tower can grab them out of thin air. The next month will have two successful launches to get the big Starlink satellites up to a higher orbit. Then there will be weekly launches, hopefully… The first refueling station needs to be put in a stable Low Earth Orbit that the Starship can reach and refill the tanks to deliver the cargo and land back on Earth. In the interview, they talked about expendable Starships, which I can not see that it would be needed. After they can recover both the Booster and second stage, SpaceX can start reducing prices. SpaceX needs to reach the Moon. You know, so the millionaires can have a two week vacation to orbit the Earth and the Moon. After SpaceX has one refueling station, they will refill the Starship and see how far it can get to the Moon. Then they will know how, and the second and tenth refueling stations will be stationed at the same intervals. The Starship will need weekly launches to refill the tanks at the orbital refueling stations. After the refueling stations are full, hopefully there will be enough millionaires to have two monthly trips to orbit the Moon. Once Starship can deliver, forget about too much space junk; there will be too many space stations…

FAA learns from their investigations as should be expected. When actual unintended failures occur it should be a good thing for them to be competent

While eliminating ship reusability will never make sense, heavy lift, expendable ships would make a great addition to the fleet.

I would be really interested how they plan to turn regulite from the moon into a base for Space X launches. I get the methane production, hydrogen etc from water, but even that is pretty hard as to getting enough for the process. Given the problems here on Earth it seems logical that they could be insurmountable off Earth.

I believe 100% they will figure out the catch thing,.. gonna be amazing whatever happens!

You make me smile.

None of this cost talk matters right now. Until regular operations start, a Starship launch will cost whatever SpaceX wants it to. Once a true competitor of mass-to-destination shows up, then a more true cost of a Starship launch will appear: a cost which will undercut that competitor. Like SpaceX did with Falcon 9 costs to all other launch providers.

Catching the Starship on chopsticks will likely require some kind of shock absorption struts on them. I.E. absorb 10 feet per second touchdown velocity with 25% extra force (deceleration = 1G/4 = 8 ft/sec squared) That works out to 12 feet of shock absorption compression

Starship should fly two to three days after the FAA gives SpaceX the launch license.

38:50 Is anyone really that shocked that a private company flying rockets could knock the socks off of govermant funded rocket programs? That just seems lika a no brainer to me. 😅

I was just thinking about how I feel after watching these interviews. I feel like I know so much more and have been engaged in a great intellectual conversation. At times I get tired of the comments on the platform around SpaceX. Certainly a lot more trolling or not well thought out commentary. What I see from the comments here and especially within the content of your interviews are deep intellectual dives. Love it.

I like to think of this as free beach renourishment

Your second guest had so much great info to share! Too… bad he… speaks like… William Shatner when… he’s… acting…

A little dry, but this is great commentary. Ozan should spend time defining the term 'marginal cost'. Also, 'variable cost'. If one Starship flight can be added to the manifest, such that a customer covers the cost of that one additional flight and some amount of fixed costs, then then the flight should likely occur. But in terms of fully allocated costs, the flight should not occur. I've seen one insightful case study on this. At any rate, people never seem to understand the difference between fully allocated costs and the variable cost associated with adding one additional flight. We really need a good economics lesson on these terms. Also, an outline summary of Ozan's remarks would be very useful. There are always clueless naysayers who cause great trouble by misleading others with faulty conclusions based on bad analysis. If Starship costs should approach $100 million, I would like more analysis to explain why Starship's future becomes problematic. Can we not just let Falcon handle the bottom feeder side of the market? But marginal costs will continue to drop, so costs per flight could drop surprisingly low. More analysis needed. I'd like Ozan to do the work or explain what he already understands.

Hopefully, all engines light again.

if SAND bothers you, maybe you should move away from the coast. - DUH

I disagree on the chopsticks catching the booster. If they are using pins to position that is some crazy control to need to have on the booster. If they went to a ring on the booster where orientation was not as critical it would be more possible but still highly unlikely. The problem comes from the fact that a catastrophic failure at landing means that you lose launch capabilities from that tower as well. Even a less than catastrophic but still failed landing could significantly damage stage 0. I think ultimately SpaceX will elect to land in a standard manner, just to avoid the pitfalls of a possible failure.

Will they ever get those tiles to stop falling off?

Another one out of the ballpark Ellie. Thank you for your stunningly good interviews.

Ice, the silent Killer - Mayday aerial disaster, National Geographis Channel. The heat exchanger procedure looks much more reliable. Is there realy a need for the 33 Raptors to have heat exchangers? Only 3 at the center motors wold'nt be enough?

I miss the floating Ellie Spacegirl at the end of your videos!

Ppl don't realize that by the time - hypothetically speaking - that starship could claim $1M or $10M per launch of starship inflation is going to have the cost at $10M or $100M respectively so not cheap by the time it is reliably reusable. 😊

IF Starship took off and landed 100. *. the cost per flight might be around $10 million. / 2 million is overly optimistic

Interstellar Blight vibes?

Venting oxygen seems problematic.

Great video Ellie but could you please use the metric system? 99% of the world and 100% of the scientific community does. Or do both?

Agree

The people who criticize your looks..that’s really only your bf’s concern. But if you want this beat, you need to gain in rocket expertise.

Its always good to talk with someone who can do marginal analysis. Marginal Utility is super useful in contemplating and understanding prices, and prices are fundamental to engineering. When Elon talks about first principles, he is doing economic calculation from the input costs to the final product price anticipating the market as best you can. This speculation is pretty awesome, haven't heard about a lot of this.

nah im ok thanks

Finally! A real, higher level technical discussion of the Syatship system. Thank you!

Too much ..

Wish I could be in Space X sweeping the streets as a job , I love SPACE X

spaceX should build a retractable metal grill landing pad elevator/platform just below the chopsticks to rotate into place and catch starship from the base and slowly descend it to take up the load whilst giving much more time to reposition chopsticks at the top to finally lock in.

I would like to see the back-end numbers that get Starship costs approx. the same as a Falcon 9. When people's lives are at stake a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

Emergency!!! Baffles will not work to prevent the slushing problem, because the tanks of Starship system are too large. The tanks of Starship and superheavy need 2 disks valves, expanding the diameter of each tank. One of the disks rotates above the other disk to close the overlaping holes on the surface of the disks; to reduce the Size of the tank by dividing it, before any rotation of the rocket. This will prevent slushings and protect the plumbing, if located 10% above the bottom section of each tank. Large telescopic pistons can be attached below the bottom of disk valves to control the fuel pressure as the piston expands into the fuel. I have built a model that works perfectly. The second disk valve can be located 10% below the front of the tank, to also protect the front of the tanks from the slushing forces. Why is Elon not using four pins instead of three to secure each heat tyle? What is more important than that?😊

One sort of Texas spider infestation in her eyes

If Musk and SpaceX want to build a variable Starship that should be done from their own pocket, how much per HLS will Starship cost Nasa and the US government, considering the overcomplexity of the design and number of launches to get Musk sales pitch of 100 to 150 tons to the lunar surface, when compared with the other options that were available for the program. This is the important question based on the unusual decision making in the selection process. NASA did not grant a contract and funding to SpaceX to develop a variable starship. Stick to HLS when it comes to cost comparisons on Human Landing Systems, do not convolute it by comparing to resupply missions or satellite launches. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges.

It sounds like it might make more sense to make the starship disposable and only reuse the booster.

PLEASE, PLEASE, do NOT have any more Guest on your show that are Chewing Tobacco while they are talking. ABSOLUTELY not fun to watch or hear.

He is not a expert clearly. Ellie try harder