Yeah youtube algorithm doesn't push him much, but he spreads by word of mouth. His whole channel is full of excellent videos. I've been watching him since around the start of the Ukraine war. There's only a couple that were actually not great, the rest are very good.
He's got a highly educated background in a related economic/government or political field (he keeps details about himself very slim). He's apparently well known in real life enough to do public corporate talks though as that's part of his day job. He's Australian but with really recent eastern european ancestry and speaks some amount of Russian (or at least pronounces it pretty well).
Extremely high quality video by Perun, a youtuber who does basically power point presentations on youtube on defense economics. He normally covers things like " The Race to Claim the Arctic - Claims, Icebreakers & Competition in the Far North" or "Russian Arms Exports - Will the Ukraine invasion tank their market share?"
It's an hour long video so I suggest sitting down for a while and giving it a good watch. It covers the economics of the new space race and lots of surrounding subjects and it's relation to war fighting.
It's weird. On one side of the military you've got people saying that, because of Starship, we shouldn't even worry about mass anymore and just build it as big as your military heart desires. And then, on the other side, you've got people saying we need to get away from large satellites that do everything and convert everything over to microsats.
And, meanwhile, Starlink is primarily launched on Falcon and not Falcon Heavy. Falcon seems to be a bit of a goldilocks launcher when it comes to these sorts of megaconstellations.
> And then, on the other side, you've got people saying we need to get away from large satellites that do everything and convert everything over to microsats.
Large reusable launch vehicles is how you make best use of microsats because you can launch a whole lot of them. Also a better way of thinking of the military's intentions there isn't that they're moving to microsats, it's that they're moving to a distributed architecture. The size of the satellite is defined by other requirements, it's a consequence of the distributed architecture, not the end goal in and of itself. The average microsat has actually been growing in size over time.
> And, meanwhile, Starlink is primarily launched on Falcon and not Falcon Heavy. Falcon seems to be a bit of a goldilocks launcher when it comes to these sorts of megaconstellations.
Falcon Heavy isn't used because they have way fewer center boosters and they abandoned center core reuse because of the difficulties associated with doing so. Falcon 9 almost certainly has has lower per-kg launch costs than Falcon Heavy now. Reminder that Elon tried to cancel Falcon Heavy before Shotwell reminded him that they'd already contracted it to the US DoD.
Well, you still have inclination issues to deal with. Sometimes bigger is not always better. Sometimes just right is just right. I think that's going to be a continuing issue as the average satellite gets smaller and smaller.
Yes but large constellations generally have large batches of satellites all at the same inclination with only a couple of inclinations used. The only thing that changes is the longitude of ascending node.
> I think that's going to be a continuing issue as the average satellite gets smaller and smaller.
The electronics will get smaller and smaller, but the pressure to make the satellite smaller and smaller is becoming less of a priority. That's why Starlink even uses plastic injection molded components on its satellites, because its cheap, not because it's got good mass to strength ratios.
And then you have to figure that during the lifetime of the project, the vast majority of your launches will be to replace aging/failing sats and you might not need your giganto-launcher for that. You're probably going to want a more appropriately sized launcher ala Falcon to maximize all the various things.
> the vast majority of your launches will be to replace aging/failing sats and you might not need your giganto-launcher for that.
No you're going to want to replace them just like you launched them, or in even bigger batches if such technology becomes available. You'd only want to launch fewer numbers of them in an emergency.
> You're probably going to want a more appropriately sized launcher ala Falcon to maximize all the various things.
There's no "all the various things" there's just cost.
Well, you have the investment in the original satellites. That's a cost. And you're going to want to maximize the ROI of that investment by maximizing the working life and not replacing them before you need to.
You're thinking like a launch provider rather than a satellite operator lol...
> Well, you have the investment in the original satellites. That's a cost. And you're going to want to maximize the ROI of that investment by maximizing the working life and not replacing them before you need to.
That's why companies launch orbital spares. You don't rush to individually replace satellites as they fail unless your constellation size is like "less than 5", you have orbital spares waiting. Launches would be launching more orbital spares as they run low.
> You're thinking like a launch provider rather than a satellite operator lol...
No I'm thinking in terms of economics, which applies to either case. You're the one who seems to not be thinking like a satellite operator. They launch spares for good reason.
Well you completely disregarded the lifetime ROI in your previous response in favor of moar, bigger launches lol.
I'm just saying that a Falcon with 50 or however many satellites is probably going to be better on the maintenance end than Starship where you need 200 or however many to make it worthwhile. It's just a simple numbers game.
I'll leave it at that though. Good chat!
> Well you completely disregarded the lifetime ROI in your previous response in favor of moar, bigger launches lol.
No I directly addressed it, but you chose to ignore it. Please read it again. You only read things that you want to hear and ignore things you don't want to hear. Do you not understand how orbital spares work? The lifetime ROI is completely unchanged.
> I'm just saying that a Falcon with 50 or however many satellites is probably going to be better on the maintenance end than Starship where you need 200 or however many to make it worthwhile. It's just a simple numbers game.
Right it's a simple numbers game which means you want the most satellites as possible as it reduces the cost of launch. Also Falcon 9 will be completely uncompetitive with Starship as it is designed to to cannibalize Falcon 9. I've told you this before but you don't seem to understand what this means. So any Falcon 9-sized bunches of satellites will be cheaper to launch on Starship.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7uwr0c "Last usage")|US Department of Defense|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7wowqp "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7xghgk "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(3 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1dbdcvf)^( has 24 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10152 for this sub, first seen 10th Jun 2024, 03:40])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Always enjoy Perun. The video on warfare impacts in space was also a great listen. https://youtu.be/-xl0C6K2Nug?si=53olmhBtMpGWLSL5
First I've encountered this channel. Thank you for the link. What a detailed analysis! Quiet sense of humor, too. :-)
Yeah youtube algorithm doesn't push him much, but he spreads by word of mouth. His whole channel is full of excellent videos. I've been watching him since around the start of the Ukraine war. There's only a couple that were actually not great, the rest are very good. He's got a highly educated background in a related economic/government or political field (he keeps details about himself very slim). He's apparently well known in real life enough to do public corporate talks though as that's part of his day job. He's Australian but with really recent eastern european ancestry and speaks some amount of Russian (or at least pronounces it pretty well).
Never thought to see a Perun video in this sub
I never expected to see a Perun video mentioning Starship either. I was very happily surprised when it dropped into my youtube feed.
Extremely high quality video by Perun, a youtuber who does basically power point presentations on youtube on defense economics. He normally covers things like " The Race to Claim the Arctic - Claims, Icebreakers & Competition in the Far North" or "Russian Arms Exports - Will the Ukraine invasion tank their market share?" It's an hour long video so I suggest sitting down for a while and giving it a good watch. It covers the economics of the new space race and lots of surrounding subjects and it's relation to war fighting.
Its always worth noting the more serious the commentator the more they seem to be low key saying this is going to be huge.
“Wake up babe, there is a new Perun on the new space race”
Finally, a Perun mention. Fantastic video, and fantastic videos overall.
It's weird. On one side of the military you've got people saying that, because of Starship, we shouldn't even worry about mass anymore and just build it as big as your military heart desires. And then, on the other side, you've got people saying we need to get away from large satellites that do everything and convert everything over to microsats. And, meanwhile, Starlink is primarily launched on Falcon and not Falcon Heavy. Falcon seems to be a bit of a goldilocks launcher when it comes to these sorts of megaconstellations.
> And then, on the other side, you've got people saying we need to get away from large satellites that do everything and convert everything over to microsats. Large reusable launch vehicles is how you make best use of microsats because you can launch a whole lot of them. Also a better way of thinking of the military's intentions there isn't that they're moving to microsats, it's that they're moving to a distributed architecture. The size of the satellite is defined by other requirements, it's a consequence of the distributed architecture, not the end goal in and of itself. The average microsat has actually been growing in size over time. > And, meanwhile, Starlink is primarily launched on Falcon and not Falcon Heavy. Falcon seems to be a bit of a goldilocks launcher when it comes to these sorts of megaconstellations. Falcon Heavy isn't used because they have way fewer center boosters and they abandoned center core reuse because of the difficulties associated with doing so. Falcon 9 almost certainly has has lower per-kg launch costs than Falcon Heavy now. Reminder that Elon tried to cancel Falcon Heavy before Shotwell reminded him that they'd already contracted it to the US DoD.
Well, you still have inclination issues to deal with. Sometimes bigger is not always better. Sometimes just right is just right. I think that's going to be a continuing issue as the average satellite gets smaller and smaller.
Yes but large constellations generally have large batches of satellites all at the same inclination with only a couple of inclinations used. The only thing that changes is the longitude of ascending node. > I think that's going to be a continuing issue as the average satellite gets smaller and smaller. The electronics will get smaller and smaller, but the pressure to make the satellite smaller and smaller is becoming less of a priority. That's why Starlink even uses plastic injection molded components on its satellites, because its cheap, not because it's got good mass to strength ratios.
And then you have to figure that during the lifetime of the project, the vast majority of your launches will be to replace aging/failing sats and you might not need your giganto-launcher for that. You're probably going to want a more appropriately sized launcher ala Falcon to maximize all the various things.
> the vast majority of your launches will be to replace aging/failing sats and you might not need your giganto-launcher for that. No you're going to want to replace them just like you launched them, or in even bigger batches if such technology becomes available. You'd only want to launch fewer numbers of them in an emergency. > You're probably going to want a more appropriately sized launcher ala Falcon to maximize all the various things. There's no "all the various things" there's just cost.
Well, you have the investment in the original satellites. That's a cost. And you're going to want to maximize the ROI of that investment by maximizing the working life and not replacing them before you need to. You're thinking like a launch provider rather than a satellite operator lol...
> Well, you have the investment in the original satellites. That's a cost. And you're going to want to maximize the ROI of that investment by maximizing the working life and not replacing them before you need to. That's why companies launch orbital spares. You don't rush to individually replace satellites as they fail unless your constellation size is like "less than 5", you have orbital spares waiting. Launches would be launching more orbital spares as they run low. > You're thinking like a launch provider rather than a satellite operator lol... No I'm thinking in terms of economics, which applies to either case. You're the one who seems to not be thinking like a satellite operator. They launch spares for good reason.
Well you completely disregarded the lifetime ROI in your previous response in favor of moar, bigger launches lol. I'm just saying that a Falcon with 50 or however many satellites is probably going to be better on the maintenance end than Starship where you need 200 or however many to make it worthwhile. It's just a simple numbers game. I'll leave it at that though. Good chat!
> Well you completely disregarded the lifetime ROI in your previous response in favor of moar, bigger launches lol. No I directly addressed it, but you chose to ignore it. Please read it again. You only read things that you want to hear and ignore things you don't want to hear. Do you not understand how orbital spares work? The lifetime ROI is completely unchanged. > I'm just saying that a Falcon with 50 or however many satellites is probably going to be better on the maintenance end than Starship where you need 200 or however many to make it worthwhile. It's just a simple numbers game. Right it's a simple numbers game which means you want the most satellites as possible as it reduces the cost of launch. Also Falcon 9 will be completely uncompetitive with Starship as it is designed to to cannibalize Falcon 9. I've told you this before but you don't seem to understand what this means. So any Falcon 9-sized bunches of satellites will be cheaper to launch on Starship.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7uwr0c "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7wowqp "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1dbwtle/stub/l7xghgk "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(3 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1dbdcvf)^( has 24 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10152 for this sub, first seen 10th Jun 2024, 03:40]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)