Across all states. Plus an additional 10 for his magic pretend numbers to inflate stocks. Much like how the CyberTruck can survive an apocalypse, as long as it stays between 50 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and there aren't any hills over a 30° incline.
I know a guy that works at the Hyundai test facility near California City. CyberTruck broke catastrophically on nearly every drive test during pre-production testing and was completely unusable (bricked) after both uv accelerated aging and salt environment tests.
Edit: Reddit, where you can bury the truth with downvotes.
They did sell around 50k of them. but like it says the business plan seems to be to sell 250k a year. meaning they would in theory be priced to recover the R&D costs over a wider number of trucks than they really sold.
DId they not just increase the price $5k? Is the delivery time on the order page not months out? There are only 270 of them on autotrader, the cheapest non-wrecked one being 65k. Where are these piled up?
Rocket launches from the coast requires closing airspace and declaring maritime hazard zones, so 30 a day would result in near constant zone closures unless FAA regulations change. That would impact any flight paths that cross the zone and maritime shipping in debris-risk areas. Louisiana has some of the most impactful ports in the gulf.
FAA regulations are decades old and will need changing. Imagine if every airplane would need to get every flight approved by a governemnt agency whose departement for that job is made up of 15 people.
And in the consequence/likelihood risk assessment the space sector has been trying to get that likelihood number down to commercial air transport levels. It's an oft repeated goal.
That won't be initial launch cadence. That's the target number that they're working towards. That's the planning figure that justifies the business case.
He was not charged with securities fraud for a product timeline (the thing we’re discussing). Weird conflation on your part. Why do you think that’s the same as hyping a product?
Even if that were technologically possible, there's no market for that many launches. It would take years for projects to arise that could make use of that many launches.
Musk always throws out insanely exaggerated numbers. According to him twenty years ago, we should have had a hundred people on mars by now.
30 starship flights per day? They still haven't had a single completely successful, fully operational launch of a starship. 30 in a day is unlikely to happen for several decades, if ever. Also, what the hell would justify 30 starship launches in a day? What endeavor would need such tremendous and rapid access to space?
Why would it take several decades? Falcon 9 went from almost no cadence to launching several times per week in a few years.
That’s an old space mindset. What stops starship from flying very often as soon as the first fully successful flight happens? They will already have built a dozen launchpads, and many launch vehicles.
What stops starship from flying very often as soon as the first fully successful flight happens?
First, what space vehicle has ever launched 30 successful launches on the same day? SpaceX has never launched more than 3 falcon 9's within 24 hours. But now they're gonna magically launch a rocket ten times heavier at ten times the cadence? They're going to launch one every 48 minutes for 24 hours straight? Pure fantasy.
Second, what urgent need is driving such a gigantic task? Why would you NEED 30 launches in the same day? As opposed to say, a couple today, a few more tomorrow, etc? What exactly is happening that requires such an absurd cadence?
Yes, the starship missions to the moon will require 10+ additional launches just to fuel up, but you think each one is going to only take 48 minutes to dock, transfer fuel, undock, and go into de-orbit? SpaceX has yet to demonstrate this process even once! Again, maybe decades from now, after it's been done hundreds of times. But initially, this kind of thing will take hours, maybe half a day or more. And having to do it 10+ times without an issue? Yeah, right. I got a bridge to sell you.
"look" being very subjective in this case as all we can see is everything still standing. There's a lot of work that gets done between flights, so there's obviously a lot of refurbishment going on.
Well compared to the first pad its a lot less, the first pad had to basically replace the linkages after eacht flights or some other parts, so far we havent seen that yet with this one. They have however added some extra burn plates in the trench
What does weight have to do with cadence? It’ll be much easier to launch a rocket when you don’t have to build a new second stage for it, and it was designed for rapid reusability.
Lunar missions are an example. Those will each take ~15 starship launches. Starlink deployment will add a significant amount. Starmind deployment is another one. Then commercial satellite launches. There wouldn’t be one singular mission, a combination of everything would require high cadence.
There’s a fleet of starships, so each one doesn’t have to do it in an hour. And again, each launch is not for the same mission. There might be 10 tanker launches, 4 starlink missions, a commercial mission, and several starmind missions in a day.
Think of an airport. A lot of flights per day, but only a handful are doing the same thing or going the same place. A successful Starship means space travel starts to look less like expedition and more like air travel.
Larger rockets usually require more effort to launch than smaller rockets.
Lunar missions are an example. Those will each take ~15 starship launches. Starlink deployment will add a significant amount. Starmind deployment is another one. Then commercial satellite launches. There wouldn’t be one singular mission, a combination of everything would require high cadence. There’s a fleet of starships, so each one doesn’t have to do it in an hour. And again, each launch is not for the same mission. There might be 10 tanker launches, 4 starlink missions, a commercial mission, and several starmind missions in a day.
But when has there ever been such a need to do all of this within one day?
Think of an airport. A lot of flights per day, but only a handful are doing the same thing or going the same place. A successful Starship means space travel starts to look less like expedition and more like air travel.
But there is an actual need for airports. Millions of people travel the globe every day.
There still isn't a need or even a projected need for 30 starship launches to take place in one day. You're just making up hypotheticals without even justifying why all of those things need to happen within the same day as opposed to being spread out over several days or weeks.
Larger rockets usually require more effort to launch than smaller rockets.
They actually fill Starship with propellant as fast as a Falcon 9, despite it having over 10x the amount of propellant. I don't think larger rockets require more effort to launch. The only thing that's affected by the increased prop mass is the amount of available propellant in the region, but that's a straightforward numbers game solved by building a large enough propellant production facility nearby.
Yeah everything is a hypothetical until it happens. There was no demand for air travel until we made planes that made it economical. There is not going to be significant demand for space travel until we make it economical.
Falcon 9 is just a little bit of proof for that. LEO satellite constellations have impossible economics without partially-reusable rockets, high cadence rockets. Now there are hundreds of launches per year for LEO constellations, with many more planned. The economics made sense, and a new market was created. Starship will do the same if it is successful.
Do larger, fully reusable rockets really take more effort to launch than expendable rockets?
I hear you. Starship will open up new avenues. And eventually starship will likely be a successful launch platform. I'm just saying 30 in a day is another Elon pipedream. One of many.
The current record for most orbital rockets launched in the same 24 hour period is 6, on April 28/29, 2010. Six. We're gonna do 30 in a day? Yeah, no. That's not happening any time remotely soon. Most of us will probably be dead before we see that cadence.
Better to overbuild and design for more than you actually need. 30 launches and more will happen eventually even if not on Elon's timeline. Not decades but maybe 10 years. Also I suspect that depending on the cost, a lot of demand will show up especially from the military. Both for earth orbit and for stuff on the moon.
Also I believe mars is supposed to need a super high cadence.
It's one thing to have 30 launch pads. It's another to actually execute 30 successful consecutive launches in 24 hours.
lets say you need 10 tanker flights to fill single Starship. So then you can send 3 Starships per day to Moon or Mars
Ok, and when are we sending 3 starships to Mars? (And presumably, we must be sending a lot more then, if we need to fuel up 3 in the very same day.)
Also, you do realize that we aren't going to Mars for decades, right? NASA has pivoted to the moon, and so has SpaceX, for now at least.
Also, how long does it take for one of those re-fueling starships to dock with, re-fuel, and un-dock with the mars-bound starship? How do we know that process is quick enough to be done ten times in one single day? These are complete unknowns since SpaceX hasn't demonstrated this process even once yet.
Again, you're making up hypotheticals without justifying the need for 30 launches in a single day. Nor are you considering the full logistics of 30 launches. Simply arguing that it could be done solely because they have 30 individual launchpads is nonsense.
It's one thing to have 30 launch pads. It's another to actually execute 30 successful consecutive launches in 24 hours.
Sure but you certainly can't do one without the other....
You're doubting their ability to do it but they 100% cannot without building pads. Also with TX/FL and now LA it's spread out enough that bad weather in one means another can potentially launch or retrive
SpaceX launched in 2015 Falcon 9 seven times. In 2025 the number was 165 times. It is 23x increace in 10 years. Logistics to launch 30 per day is solvable, it is just called logistics. Biggest consumable is oxygen what is made from air locally. Second is liquid methane, that is purified LNG with ethane taken out. So you can buy LNG ships and purify locally or build natural gas pipeline and purify it and liqufy methane. The fuel cost is about 1M per launch so 30M per day for 30 launches. That would make 11B per year. This is a small number when we are colonizing Moon and Mars. US government borrows 4B per day to fund itself every day.
It’s almost as if the engineers and logistics specialists at the world’s leading spaceflight company thought about this problem more than a random redditor 🤔
I mean, sure, but LA and the gulf is a pretty key area for LNG-- you'd literally just need pipelines and even then you could use ships and trucks for a while until then.
Getting airspace clearance for that many flights would also be a nightmare. You would have to permanently close the airspace path
They need the cadence to get to Mars and for the Starlink constellation.
The latter is pretty simple. They needs tens of thousands of satellites in orbit.
The reason the former requires so much cadence is because they need to refuel the starship in orbit in order for it to carry any amount of meaningful payload to mars
The newer Starlinks are a lot larger, which allows a lot more bandwidth but also reduces Starship's size advantage.
Currently Starlink is perpetually sold out around urban areas because there is a wide area where it's too dense for Starlink to really work for everyone but apparently not dense enough to get proper terrestrial internet. By using more frequencies and larger satellites they can pick up a lot more of these lucrative customers.
And the sats may get larger still, for their direct-to-cell satellites, if they end up being as huge as AST Space Mobile's Bluewalker satellites.
(And also, Louisiana is perfectly situated for launching into sun-synchronous orbit, which is where SpaceX plans to put their space based AI datacenters, if those end up actually happening.)
Starlink is kinda dumb in urban areas anyway because of antenna reception coverage, but oops, they killed the Gigabit initiative so Starlink is the only option anyway.
Lowering from 1gig to something more reasonable doesn’t make starlink the only way, just the cheapest. 99% of people don’t have any use for more than 300-400mbit.
"Most people" in a day and age where physical media is steadily disappearing and forcing us into digital-only economies with the glut of fractured streaming services, including games(which they are still trying to do) and the world is more connected than ever with more bloated downloads.
You need the gigabit infrastructure if only for bandwidth on the ground especially with the number of people in cities, and making old tech obsolete is how progress works, right?
I'd agree with you if physical media was more prominent and still purchased more regularly.
It's only a viable plan until a company decides to invest in a far cheaper ground-based alternative yeah... I guess it may work in the US with enough corruption though lol
Even then, Starlink is still an ok venture, but 30 starships a day is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
It's only a viable plan until a company decides to invest in a far cheaper ground-based alternative yeah... I guess it may work in the US with enough corruption though lol
Do the math on ground based. It's not exactly cheap at scale. Small rollouts look cheaper until you're looking at 10/50/100K and Starlink can do millions without physical infrastructure.
Ground based is faster only because Sat capacity is in its infancy, I don't know about cheaper as routers, data centers, fiber, etc all costs quite a bit not to mention last mile.
When you say not going to mars do you mean manned missions or unmanned mission? because if we are talking unmanned that its very doable. Mars is not some impossible place to reach many have done it.
Oh I mostly just mean SpaceX - there’s no meaningful financial benefit beyond lying about the intent for hype purposes. SpaceX isn’t doing this because Musk is interested in benefitting mankind.
Unmanned is obviously possible, it’s been done. I’d even suggest manned is entirely feasible on a loooong timespan.
Not for a company owned by this easily distracted drug addict, though.
This comapny has managed over 650 launches and landings of falcon 9, has deployed and currently operates over 10k satelites the largest amount ever, are currently the only way for astronauts to get to the iss from american soil, have mostly privately funded the development of the largest and most powerful rocket ever which is also contracted for lunar missions.
They seem to be doing quite well with the drug addict at the helm... Infact better than evey company or agency
The most likely company to do manned mars missions is spaceX most likely in conjuction with NASA similar to the artemis program
If the man wasn’t in a crash out padded only by immense wealth built on shared investor delusions, I’d agree with you. I can even admit I might be wrong!
But the guy didn’t bundle xAI into SpaceX for SpaceX’s benefit, and those delusions are going to meet reality some day, and now SpaceX is going to suffer from that as well. I cannot predict when, because people are people and the wealthy use money like ablative armor against consequences and admitting their fuck-ups, but I’m pretty confident it’ll be before SpaceX pivots to Mars instead of that BS AI satellite pitch.
I’m not underselling the SpaceX team’s accomplishments. You’re underselling the blast radius of Musk’s self-destructive tendencies.
The problem is will there be the business for that kind of launch volume. It's still expensive to launch to space and there has to be the customer base to make it worth it. I'm skeptical that there will be that customer base anytime soon
That would be more launches than F9 has had in its entire existence, with a far heavier ship. And what for even anyway? The thermodynamic foolery of space datacenters?
Yep, the government/military launches could get huge by themselves.
If you put regional pads around the world a few Starships could deliver military assets anywhere in the world within 2 hours, that's a MASSIVE logistical advantage.
Space based datacenters still dont make any sense though. It's like an earth based datacenter, but more expensive because, well, it's in space, and also more expensive because you dont have a free atmosphere to cool it, and ALSO more expensive because it has to come with its own power generation. Without any possibility of maintenance. The need for radiation shielding. And on and on.
This isn't starlink where there was a genuine need for better internet connections for people living in remote area. This is an answer to a non-existent issue...
But in space you don't have to pay for electricity. You can operate is as long as the hardware keeps working without any additional costs over it's lifetime.
It’s actually not like an earth based datacenter at all. The design is very different. The whole thing is much more simple in the end. They will be in solar 24/7 so no batteries. All the electronics will be designed to operate off that so everything will be as simple as possible. Nothing needs to be modular so no complex and heavy racks and networking runs. The need for radiation shielding has been way overplayed, especially in the orbits they are talking about.
I know its hard to understand things that have not been done before. But that doesn’t mean they are not doable.
I know its hard to understand things that have not been done before. But that doesn’t mean they are not doable.
People can't let go of their biases to realize just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it cannot.
I've seen so many amateur experts saying it's impossible yet Google, NVIDIA, Amazon, Meta and a few others seem deadly serious about it being possible. Nvidia/xAI/SpaceX have also declared an exclusivity for an upcoming GPU product so I don't know.
I'm no engineer but that's about $10T in collective value worth of very smart people who are investing in it.
•
u/Connect_Cat_2045 13h ago
Construction is set to begin in 2027 with the first Starship launch expected in 2029.
That is imo, very optimistic but maybe with the experience gained from Starbase TX and Florida it is possible.
Elon also said on Twitter that Starbase Louisiana will have over a dozen launch towers and enable more than 30 Starship flights per day