[thg]

> Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously.

Starship is a complete and utter failure, as you can read about here, among other places: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowh...

> It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices.

By being several magnitudes more expensive than an airplane would ever be?

[tristanj]

Starship in its current incomplete form (v3 fully expendable ship and booster) already has the lowest cost to orbit in $/kg of any launch vehicle ever. It's around $400/kg to orbit fully expendable.

Add in booster reuse, which SpaceX has already demonstrated on test flight 9, and the cost to orbit drops to $200/kg.

[thg]

A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m and the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload on a sub-orbital flight of not even 200km (Starlink satellites have an orbit of around 550km). That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg for a rather meaningless altitude and assuming a fully reusable Starship that doesn't keep blowing up.

I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. To be economical at all, Starship needs to reach its target capacity of 100 tonnes to orbit, which is simply never going to happen. But even if it somehow does, it's physically impossible for Starship to ever make it further than the moon, at extreme costs, due to the refuelling requirements and fuel boil-off in orbit.

[tristanj]

There's so much wrong here, a ton to unpack.

> A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m

No, that's the Starship build cost, i.e. the cost of an expendable Starship. A fully reusable Starship currently does not exist, but reusable launch cost be around $5m/launch (amortized).

> the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload

Intentional, Starship wasn't fully loaded.

> on a sub-orbital flight

Intentional, test flights are sub-orbital.

> of not even 200km

Intentional, done to target the landing site in the Indian Ocean.

> That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg

You can do basic math, but you are intentionally using incorrect numbers. Garbage in, garbage out.

> I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from

Starship V3 manufacturing cost (one-off, not mass manufactured) is around $80-100m. Mass manufactured V3 would be in the $50m range. Starship V3 has 100T payload capacity to orbit in reusable config, see https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/05/future-starship-bloc... . In expendable config, Starship can carry 200T, see https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/04/16/detailed-review-of-sta...

Using today's numbers, we get:

$80 million / 200 tons = $400/kg to orbit (fully expendable).

This number is already exaggerated, the booster is already proven to be reusable.

If the current Starship is mass produced, this improves to $50 million / 200 tons = $250/kg to orbit (fully expendable).

> To be economical at all, Starship needs to reach its target capacity of 100 tonnes to orbit

You do realize the Starship + Booster stack weighs 5,000 tons, and that a 100 ton payload is only 2% of the rocket mass? And that 2% is an achievable fraction, both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have a payload fraction >4%. The Starship upper stage alone weighs 1,600 tons.

> refueling requirements

In terms of problem difficulty, orbital refueling is a minor engineering challenge to solve.

> fuel boil-off in orbit

I hope you are being facetious at this point. How do you think LNG is transported around the world? You realize this problem was solved decades ago?

[checkbuzz]

Wow. Please tell me this is a joke.

That $75-90 million figure is the current cost to launch Starship. It is also the approximate cost to build Starship. Both of these things are true.

$5 million per launch is an Elon Musk wet dream that's never going to happen. You know like Tesla FSD?

Sure 44 tons to orbit was intentional. You can report back when they intentionally launch 100 tons to orbit. Until then it's just another worthless Musk promise.

The fact that the Falcon 9 and heavy can launch more than 2% of their mass into orbit has no bearing on Starship's capability to do the same.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Neither of those rockets is fully reusable like Starship. They don't have to carry a return supply of fuel for landing, or a heat shield, landing legs, aerodynamic wings and everything else that's required for full reusability.

And refuelling in orbit is only a minor engineering challenge? That's just hilarious! Try reading something other than Musk's X feed.

I hope you are being facetious at this point. Please don't tell me that you think Starship is fuelled with LNG propellent.

Fuel boil-off in orbit is real, just like it is on the ground. Except in orbit you don't have a big cryogenically cooled tank of propellant to top it up with sitting only 100m away.

Have you ever watched any rocket launch ever? Serious question.

Ever wondered what those huge clouds of vapour are? You know, the ones streaming out of the rocket while it's sitting on the pad ready for launch?

Boy are you in for a big surprise!