Starship “EP2P” (Earth Point-to-Point) Discussion

[Knightshade]

Yes, I get the bulk of the article wasn't relevant. I only included it for the factory shutdown cost number.

If both the supplier and factory were near enough to Starship sites, it could be worth millions.

How?

Again your own story points out speed of transport isn't the obstacle--- the availability of the person or parts on short notice is.

If the guy can't be there for 3 days then "the plane takes 1 hour instead of 4" doesn't fix the 3 days of downtime which is gonna be 99% of your cost of the downtime.

On top of that, the other thing your story points out is much of the downtime is caused by the company being too cheap to update or properly maintain stuff. So I'm not sure "for 10 million dollars the guy we waited 3 days on can arrive a few hours sooner" will be a winning pitch.

Current alternative is hiring multiple private jets (which cuts buffering time).

Why would you need multiple private jets? A 747 cargo plane holds a similar amount to starship- also I'm not sure you can provide examples where you actually needed the full cargo of either, which is north of 100 tons, let alone multiple trips of that size.

But if you did, that makes starship even worse because now you need multiple 10-million-bucks-each starships, rather than multiple less-than-1-mil-each 747s just to save a few hours.

And that continues to only save time AT ALL if you just happen to have both the down factory AND where the cargo is coming from, both physically near an existing starbase... (given building one would cost tens of millions more it's unlikely you'd just toss one in your parking lot just in case- not to mention the permitting, zoning, FAA regulations, etc involved in the whole thing of landing a starship next to a factory that itself is probably quite near a major city and has to fly over major cities to get there).


It's a nonsensical solution.

 

[mongo]

How?

Again your own story points out speed of transport isn't the obstacle--- the availability of the person or parts on short notice is.

If the guy can't be there for 3 days then "the plane takes 1 hour instead of 4" doesn't fix the 3 days of downtime which is gonna be 99% of your cost of the downtime.

On top of that, the other thing your story points out is much of the downtime is caused by the company being too cheap to update or properly maintain stuff. So I'm not sure "for 10 million dollars the guy we waited 3 days on can arrive a few hours sooner" will be a winning pitch.






Why would you need multiple private jets? A 747 cargo plane holds a similar amount to starship- also I'm not sure you can provide examples where you actually needed the full cargo of either, which is north of 100 tons, let alone multiple trips of that size.

But if you did, that makes starship even worse because now you need multiple 10-million-bucks-each starships, rather than multiple less-than-1-mil-each 747s just to save a few hours.

And that continues to only save time AT ALL if you just happen to have both the down factory AND where the cargo is coming from, both physically near an existing starbase... (given building one would cost tens of millions more it's unlikely you'd just toss one in your parking lot just in case- not to mention the permitting, zoning, FAA regulations, etc involved in the whole thing of landing a starship next to a factory that itself is probably quite near a major city and has to fly over major cities to get there).


It's a nonsensical solution.

Again, forget the article. It has nothing to do with this.

The scenario is a supplier's parts are found to be defective and there is a line stop at the OEM which will continue until known good parts arrive.

Down time = Part build time + transport time
Multiple planes are needed because the longer you wait to ship parts the longer the line is down.

If the supplier has good parts on hand, the down time is only the shipping time.

It may not justify Starship (unless trans oceanic/ continental with near costal sites), but it is a situation where hours = millions.

 

[Knightshade]

Again, forget the article. It has nothing to do with this.

The scenario is a supplier's parts are found to be defective and there is a line stop at the OEM which will continue until known good parts arrive.

Down time = Part build time + transport time
Multiple planes are needed because the longer you wait to ship parts the longer the line is down.

If the supplier has good parts on hand, the down time is only the shipping time.

Ok, but now you're WORSE off (economically) using starship instead of an airplane because each of the now-multiple trips costs MASSIVELY more.

More than you're saving certainly- especially with the whole "You also need to have a nearby starbase which costs tens of millions more" issue.


Hell unless you run a 24/7 factory the 747 is gonna get there before your next shift starts anyway. And will be flying into an existing, presumably fairly nearby, airport--- not a starbase that doesn't exist.

And as long as it's bringing at least 1 days worth of supplies you can keep restocking faster than you can use the parts, for 10 million bucks less per trip, than using starship to do it.

It may not justify Starship

Which is the actual thing I was asking for an example of.

Something where the insanely higher cost of using starship vs ship or plane is justified.

This ain't it.