Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by numpad0 464 days ago
I'm not sure how to make out of comments like this. Is SpaceX actually launching customer payloads under $50m or whatever? Because, unless they are, it won't be long before JAXA/MHI starts selling H3 at half the cost of H-IIA, which is already like 15t to LEO for $67m at 150 JPY/USD, which leaves F9 reusable barely competitive in price. I don't know what India or China charge for foreign customers, but is it really reasonable to expect worse deal than Mitsubishi from them? ...

Superheavy-Starship reusable launches at F9 price would completely destroy everything in space space, but so far the only things it had disrupted are itself and airline services under its flightpath. And even F9 is starting to show increasingly clear signs of repetitive "old space" scrubs as NASA gets more disrupted.

Is that really a meaningful statement that stands, or it that just hand wavy glance away one now?

2 comments

I'm sorry no, you should spend some time actually understanding the industry.

JAXA builds a tiny amount of rockets, almost exclusively for their own use. They have never been a significant player and its very unlikely that will change anytime soon.

Its pure fantasy to suggest otherwise. And even if they could reliably hit these prices at commercial launch scale, Falcon 9 could easily lower their prices if real competitors actually existed.

If H3 was such a dynamic thread as you suggest, why did Amazon not buy 100s of launches from them. They bought launches from every SpaceX competitor, but not Japan.

> I don't know what India or China charge for foreign customers, but is it really reasonable to expect worse deal than Mitsubishi from them? ...

China isn't really relevant. Western stuff is just not going to fly from China.

India used to do more commercial stuff, but SpaceX Rideshare is far, far, far more popular.

The reality is, India large rockets, like Japan, is mostly build for their own program, they don't really have that much access capability.

> Is that really a meaningful statement that stands, or it that just hand wavy glance away one now?

The $67m figure is the same one I'm finding for Falcon 9 (and it can carry loads 40% heavier). That made me think they were matching each other on price to stay competitive in the market and that seems correct as the internal costs I'm seeing for SpaceX Falcon 9 launches are estimated around $15mil, meaning they have a large margin from which to come down from.

> it won't be long before JAXA/MHI starts selling H3 at half the cost of H-IIA

SpaceX doesn't stand still. It's weird to think that in several years SpaceX will be in the same place (relying on Falcon 9) yet JAXA, etc will have improved dramatically.

> SpaceX doesn't stand still.

So are they launching F9 at $67m? Or do you merely expect SpaceX to eventually price match? Not that MHI is selling a lot of slots, but still. Quoted payload figures is also within ballparks.

They are actually doing launches as low as $62 million (as of 2024). They also have enormous margin to lower this cost because even the upper-bound estimate by industry analysts on the Falcon 9 launch cost for SpaceX is only $28 million.

Source: https://spaceinsider.tech/2024/07/31/ula-vs-spacex/#elemento...