[zizee]

Ok, so your argument for Starship not being the best choice for all mission profiles is based solely on cost. If Starship was cheaper, then you'd agree that it serves the mission profiles?

An estimate of 2 billion per launch is laughable, and suggests you are not arguing in good faith. 100m is more accurate for a fully disposable launch, and SpaceX has demonstrated great progress on reusability of the booster, which will cut costs considerably.

[ternnoburn]

100m is vaporware pricing. It's the $30k Tesla that drives itself. Or any of the numbers on the hyperloop. It's a made up number for the press.

I'm begging the internet to please be critical and do some basic analysis and not just believe everything they hear from that guy!

[signatoremo]

Are you arguing in good faith? What are you based on to say $100mil is vaporware? Most commercial flights (i.e. non-Starlink) are priced starting at $70 millions - [0], increased from $60m previously. That’s not for the press, although government customers such as NASA often pay much more. SpaceX is very dominant at this point that they’d be foolish to charge under cost.

And then there are Starlink launches. They made money on it on 2024, according to Shotwell, so launch cost must be way lower than external price.

[0] - https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf

[fastball]

SpaceX is mass-producing the engines, mass-producing the heat shield tiles, the fuel is cheap, the structure is stainless steel (cheap), payload capacity is huge, and full rapid re-usability seems well under way. There is no way Starship will not be the cheapest launch platform (per kilogram) if and when it is operational. It will definitely have a launch price tag for under $100m.

[zizee]

But it's not just that guy.

> Starship rocket to less than $10 million. However, Starship is still very much a development program, and Payload estimates it currently costs around $90 million for SpaceX to build a fully stacked Starship rocket. The vast majority of this cost goes toward the rocket's 39 Raptor engines and labor expenses.

So it's going to be somewhere over $100 for a fully disposable launch. What happens when they start reusing the booster? What happens when they have optimised production further?

Are you sure that your anti-musk bias isn't clouding your judgement?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-es...

[imtringued]

$100m might be correct though. Elon Musk himself has said that just the hardware for each Starship test flight has cost $100 million. This doesn't count all the hardware that hasn't flown so in practice each test flight was even more expensive than this, but there is no reason to argue that Starship will cost more than $200 million for an expendable launch and maybe a quarter of that assuming reuse via booster catch.

[Retric]

2 billion at the high end isn’t actually unreasonable when compared to falcon 9’s costs which are sitting around 100m/launch right now largely due to inflation.

There’s a have a fairly linear relationship between rocket payload and size, and for large structures going big tends to increase cost per pound so ~10x the size resulting in ~20x the cost is just mildly pessimistic.

If and only if they the thing is both rapidly reusable and individual starships are actually used for hundreds of launches do those highly optimistic numbers become vaguely possible. Even just a 0.2% failure rate would represent a massive increase over their optimistic estimates.

[bryanlarsen]

> when compared to falcon 9’s costs which are sitting around 100m/launch right now largely due to inflation.

SpaceX's financial situation argues very differently. They have raised relatively little money for a company that is spending multiple billions on two very expensive development programs (Starship and Starlink).

If Falcon cost $100M per launch the 134 launches this year would have bankrupted the company. The $1.7B they raised in spring 2022 was their last major capital injection, and have been self funded since.

If Falcon cost substantially more than $20M to launch SpaceX would need to be getting external money from somewhere. They aren't. Their revenue is well understood and is around $10B per year, and salary costs fot 13,000 people are going to consume most of that. What NASA and the Space Force pay is public knowledge, what they charge for a private launch is known, and the number of Starlink subscribers has been revealed.

[Retric]

SpaceX has several million Starlink customers providing around 6.6 Billion dollars of revenue in 2024. It not clear if it’s profitable yet, but it’s been stated to kick off 100’s of millions in positive cash flow.

As to the salaries of its employees, that’s a major component of launch costs. You can’t point to it and say launch costs must be cheap because they are paying all these people when a large fraction of them are directly or indirectly working on launches.

They are spending ~2 billion per year on Spaceship, but what they charge per launch varies widely. 5 crewed falcon 9 flight cost the government ~260 million each, and the 2 ISS missions where 145 million each. https://payloadspace.com/predicting-spacexs-2024-revenue/

[zizee]

2 billion is ridiculous, and I can only imagine that number was a misunderstanding SpaceX/Musk saying that they were spending 2 billion in a full year of R&D on Starship.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-investment-in-starship-approach...

[Retric]

That doesn’t justify why it’s ridiculous, it’s just a coincidence.

I doubt SpaceX’s internal costs are ~100m/falcon 9 launch, but companies need a markup to be profitable. 100m - 2B is a huge range covering everything from giving up on reusability and paying back R&D over a small number of flights to significant success resulting in a 90% reduction in costs per kg to LEO.

Also, having spent 5B on R&D and doing 5 test flights up to this point works out to 1 billion per flight. That’s not the actual marginal cost per flight, but when people say how expensive each shuttle flight was that’s the number they use. Nothing guarantees they continue to do Starship launches, they could fail it’s among the potential outcomes.

[zizee]

It's ridiculous because the much ridiculed SLS has a launch cost of 2 billion dollars. If you think SpaceX is throwing billions of dollars into developing a vehicle that costs thisuch to launch, you clearly haven't been following SpaceX at all.

You know there is going to be more that 5 flights, and you know people in this thread are not amortizing total R&D into flight costs. People are talking about 68 million per flight for New Glenn, which no doubt has has many hundreds of millions on R&D spend, and hasn't flown one time.

[Retric]

> You know there is going to be more than 5 flights

No, I don’t actually know the future. I can make predictions, but we could have a thermonuclear war tomorrow etc.

[OhMeadhbh]

Yes. An estimate for 2 billion is laughable. I did not say the cost WAS $2 billion, I said the Google AI gave me a range from $100M to $2B. Maybe the total cost of the program for the 1st launch was 2 billion? But you're going to amortize that cost over (hopefully) several launches.

I think you misunderstand my argument. Let me restate it.

Someone, sometime said the Starship launch was $2b. The Google AI picked that up and included it in its answer. Someone, sometime said it was around $100m. The Google AI picked that up and included it in its answer. There is a lot of range between 100m and 2b, which implies there's a lot of data getting thrown around and we don't have good numbers.

If observing that we don't have good numbers is arguing in bad faith... I don't know what to tell you.

Musk at some point said $10m for a Starship launch. I think I found a reference for that in a CNBC interview... I'll look it up later. But my point is... It is unlikely that Starship launches are $10m RIGHT NOW. But sure... maybe they will be in the future. I take Elon with a grain of salt because of his comments regarding Full Self-Driving Mode and Robo-Taxi deployment dates.

I said we should not compare New Glenn estimated launch costs RIGHT NOW with Elon's asperational price target of $10m. We should compare Starship's cost per kg to LEO RIGHT NOW with New Glenn's estimated cost per kg to LEO RIGHT NOW. Or we could compare them at a particular point in the project history. We could compare per-kg costs at first launch or estimated per-kg costs at the 10th launch.

Both companies are saying they want to do a lot of launches, so we'll eventually have MUCH better data.

I'm suggesting we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and not apples to oranges.

At the current moment, all Starship launches have been fully disposable (though yes, one booster was caught by the chopsticks so it's probably more accurate to say the whole system is about 1/12th re-usable.) At this point in the program, you have to pay for each vehicle that lands or crashes in the water. I agree with you when you say "100m is more accurate for a fully disposable launch." Starship is currently more disposable than it is reusable.

When SpaceX re-uses the boosters and the Starships, then it will not be fully disposable and the price per launch will go down. We are not at that point at the moment. You can tell this because a number of boosters and starships have fallen into the ocean, some crashing, some coming to a controlled stop just over the ocean and then falling over.

But the important part here is that the equipment that wasn't caught by the chopsticks doesn't get to be re-used. So if you want to do another launch, you have to build new equipment. That new equipment will cost money.

So if the current, mostly non-reusable Starship launches cost $100m a pop, that's after several launches. Even though we have someone estimating the first couple of New Glenn launches cost $68m, let's wait until it has 6 launches and THEN compare costs.