|
|
|
|
|
by thg
26 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
> 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?