From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   Sunday, JF Mezei quipped:   
      
   > Out of curiosity, ins't Starship/Superheavy way over sized to launch   
   > Starlink ? is there value in launching a gazillion Starlink satellites   
   > in the same orbital plane?   
      
   240.   
      
   > It was often argued that the Shuttle had a lot of "dead" weight at   
   > launch (wings, crew cabin etc(  abd still needed to acceleratre mass of   
   > its SSMEs engines to orbital speeds.   
   >   
   > If Musk only fills Starship's tanks halfway since more fuel not needed   
   > to laujch a bunch of Starlink satellites, isn't there still a lot of   
   > dead weight in this steel glorified grain silo with lots of engines on it?   
      
   Dead weight where?  The booster is almost all fuel.  The flaps on   
   Starship have a penalty, but much smaller than the wings on the Space   
   Shuttle, and there aren't compromises for cross-range capability (that   
   ended up never used anyway).   
      
      
   > Or is this recognized as a truly inefficient launch, but due to re-use,   
   > ends up beimg better in long term compared to Falcon 9 that is more   
   > efficient but discards 2nd stage every time?   
      
   Price out 6 to 7 Falcon 9 launches vs 1 Starship launch.  Then compare   
   to an Atlas launch.   
      
   BTW, the usual question is why isn't Falcon Heavy used for Starlink?   
   The answer seems to be that it's still stuck with the Falcon 9   
   fairings, so it can carry more weight or throw it farther, but it can't   
   carry more bulk.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   "This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,   
   but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler   
   moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on   
   top of him?"   
     _Roughing It_, Mark Twain.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)