I'm thinking along similar lines.

Is there an edge? What's past that edge? Is there a point where there is a universe with all of its physical principals and laws, then something beyond it where none of that applies?

Is it finite?

Like a loaf of bread?

Hello u/arreddit420, your submission "Where the heck is the universe expanding?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

It expands into nothing.

We have to assume that prior to the universe there was nothing. Literally nothing. Not even a big, open space. Just nothing. It's hard to wrap your head around "nothing". We think of it like an empty box. Thing is, the box doesn't exist and neither does the vacant space within it.

That's why the universe will expand infinitely. It's headed outward into something that doesn't exist.

>we can speculate though.

We can speculate - but also have to base the speculations on which is more likely. With its vertical integration and the simplified design of F9, SpaceX could build expendable F9s for cheaper than ULA or other competitors - in all likelihood. But they don't so in all likelihood the reuse approach is working for them, giving them even larger profits than being expendable.

[removed]

Thinking that way, which isn't wrong, means there must be an edge somewhere. What would that be like? An invisible wall u just can't move past?

>The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins.

It's probably more accurate to say the profit is reinvested into Starlink launches and all the other Starlink costs. And of course into Starship. By the time Neutron is ready Starlink will be creating its own profits and SpaceX could drop the F9 price to below $50M. Of course if Starship works then F9 won't be flying at all by then, except for Dragon and any NSSL-2 launches the DoD doesn't want to switch over to Starship yet.

The universe isn’t expanding into anything since it is everything. It’s the space in the universe that’s getting bigger. That doesn’t make intuitive sense because it not something that we experience at the size of things we interact with.

[deleted]

Nowhere. The universe's expansion is the 3D equivalent of the surface of a balloon that's getting filled with air. It's not a sphere that's getting bigger either, you could say space is "growing" from everywhere at the same time, it's why the expansion of the universe is making galaxies be pulled apart from one another.

would the waters surface tension pool the water together?

I didn't see a thing in Washington State. It was raining as usual.

[removed]

I know. That’s not the point

water would eventually evenly distribute around the globe and sit still

It's the same principal behind Saturn's rings if that helps.

Starship is focused heavily on reusability. While they may launch some Starlink missions early, they likely won't focus on customer payloads for a while, at least until reuse is working well. I would also expect SpaceX to take a while before lowing the price, both to focus on Starlink and to bring in some extra funds. And they need to put a lot of early focus on HLS for NASA.

All of this might give RL time to get Neutron going and to grab customers. Customers are also likely to grow as more try to compete with Starlink and try going away from SpaceX, similar to how OneWeb has been going with other launch providers (at least until Russia screwed them over).

We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9. Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m with everything counted. All of these were prior to the massive launch cadence and reuse they started hitting in 2021. Cost are very likely down to $15m-$20m per F9 launch and easily under $25m now.

As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for. The vast majority of the funding SpaceX has received came after Starship and Starlink development began. And that is what it is for. Not Falcon 9 which basically had to freeze it's development in 2019 for final crew rating. And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches and they would ramp up production of new boosters as mass production also reduces cost.

>What innovations does Neutron have that F9 doesn't?

Methane engine, carbon fiber body, suspended 2nd stage, staged combustion engine, fairing that returns to the landing site with the first stage.

I'd agree with you on that last point if they had left it at refurbishable F9 and just taking profits from flights. But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO, both of which have yet to profit, in the true startup fashion.

It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS. If they'd just left it at the online store they'd have been in profit a long time ago.

Until someone lower their prices, which was my point

Like water flying off a wet ball in motion. that slightly bulges at what would be the "equator" but stay due to gravity. To dumb it down.

You are assuming quite a lot about my (lack) of weight there mate 🥲

[deleted]