4 ms·

This really looks good for launch costs long-term. The Heavy costs $90 million per reusable launch with a 64,000 kg payload, or $1400 per kilogram.[1] Current

This really looks good for launch costs long-term. The Heavy costs $90 million per reusable launch with a 64,000 kg payload, or $1400 per kilogram.[1] Current versions of the Falcon 9 and Heavy can fly ten times with virtually no refurbishment between flights.[2] The only part they throw away is the $7.5 million upper stage.[3] Their expendable cost is $150M and they haven't really started reusing yet, so if they actually reuse each rocket ten times, they have a lot of room to lower prices; ten launches would be $($150M - $7.5M) + ($7.5M * 10) = $21.75M per launch, or $334/kg for the rocket itself. Launch cost won't be quite that low because they also have labor, fuel, and so on, but it looks like they can get well under $1000/kg just with the Falcon Heavy. The larger and fully-reusable BFR should do even better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy [2] https://www.space.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-triple-rocket-landing-success.html https://www.space.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-triple-rocket-land... [3] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/04/spacex-recovered-6-million-fairings-so-falcon-heavy-will-be-92-reusable.html#more-155979 https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/04/spacex-recovered-6-mil...

gliptic 8y ago
Note that a 64,000 kg payload LEO launch doesn't cost $90 million because it would have to fly expendable.
baq 8y ago
the fully reusable falcon heavy can IIRC only lift about 8000kg to LEO. expendable is volume-limited but if you want to lift a concrete block, you can :)
- JshWright 8y ago
  Reusable is 8000kg to GTO, not LEO. LEO performance in fully reusable configurations is 30+ tons.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    So assuming 32 tonnes it's $668/kg for the hardware (assuming full payloads). Probably also have to build in enough slack for occasional failed landings, but we don't know yet what the failure rate will be after the kinks are worked out.
    - JshWright 8y ago
      You'd be hard pressed to fit 32 tons inside Falcon Heavy's fairing. It's far more likely to be volume constrained than mass constrained when flying to LEO.
      - grey-area 8y ago
        That could bring satellite costs down a lot though - if launches are cheap and not weight limited a cheap steel frame satellite with heavy solar panels becomes feasible - all the old rules about building to optimise weight and not price go out the window. I wouldn’t be surprised if spacex also enter the satellite building business after mass producing starlink.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        What if SpaceX could combine cheap satellites with some form of reusable propellant-less or super high ISP propulsion? I'm thinking of solar sail or solar-ion drive tugs.
        DennisP 8y ago
        And that makes solar power satellites more feasible, especially with the BFR. Musk has expressed skepticism, famously asking "what's the conversion rate?" The answer is that microwave transmission is 40% efficient with today's technology. This isn't bad considering that average daily sunlight in geosynch is five times higher than on the ground,[1] and you don't need much storage or backup. The early SPS designs were hugely expensive monolithic beasts, but current designs use lots of identical parts (of several varieties) that self-assemble in orbit, so you get economies of scale with factory production. A year ago I read the book The Case for Space Solar Power [2], which broke down the costs in detail. With pre-SpaceX launch costs they got 15 cents/kWh, including manufacturing and ground stations. I plugged in the BFR cost Musk was claiming (I think I used $50/lb) and got about 4 cents/kWh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irradiance_on_Earth's_surface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irradiance_on... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power-ebook/dp/B00HNZ0Z96 https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power-ebook/dp/B00HN...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
apendleton 8y ago
For the moment they also throw away the fairing, which I assume isn't included in your $7.5 million as it's been reported to cost $6 million by itself (at least for regular Falcon 9 -- not sure if the Heavy fairing is different). They've been working on fairing recovery, but have yet to succeed. EDIT: scratch that, apparently the recovered the fairings as well per a comment below. Neat!

gliptic 8y ago

Note that a 64,000 kg payload LEO launch doesn't cost $90 million because it would have to fly expendable.

baq 8y ago

the fully reusable falcon heavy can IIRC only lift about 8000kg to LEO. expendable is volume-limited but if you want to lift a concrete block, you can :)

JshWright 8y ago
Reusable is 8000kg to GTO, not LEO. LEO performance in fully reusable configurations is 30+ tons.
- DennisP 8y ago
  So assuming 32 tonnes it's $668/kg for the hardware (assuming full payloads). Probably also have to build in enough slack for occasional failed landings, but we don't know yet what the failure rate will be after the kinks are worked out.
  - JshWright 8y ago
    You'd be hard pressed to fit 32 tons inside Falcon Heavy's fairing. It's far more likely to be volume constrained than mass constrained when flying to LEO.
    - grey-area 8y ago
      That could bring satellite costs down a lot though - if launches are cheap and not weight limited a cheap steel frame satellite with heavy solar panels becomes feasible - all the old rules about building to optimise weight and not price go out the window. I wouldn’t be surprised if spacex also enter the satellite building business after mass producing starlink.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        What if SpaceX could combine cheap satellites with some form of reusable propellant-less or super high ISP propulsion? I'm thinking of solar sail or solar-ion drive tugs.
      - DennisP 8y ago
        And that makes solar power satellites more feasible, especially with the BFR. Musk has expressed skepticism, famously asking "what's the conversion rate?" The answer is that microwave transmission is 40% efficient with today's technology. This isn't bad considering that average daily sunlight in geosynch is five times higher than on the ground,[1] and you don't need much storage or backup. The early SPS designs were hugely expensive monolithic beasts, but current designs use lots of identical parts (of several varieties) that self-assemble in orbit, so you get economies of scale with factory production. A year ago I read the book The Case for Space Solar Power [2], which broke down the costs in detail. With pre-SpaceX launch costs they got 15 cents/kWh, including manufacturing and ground stations. I plugged in the BFR cost Musk was claiming (I think I used $50/lb) and got about 4 cents/kWh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irradiance_on_Earth's_surface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irradiance_on... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power-ebook/dp/B00HNZ0Z96 https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Solar-Power-ebook/dp/B00HN...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

apendleton 8y ago

For the moment they also throw away the fairing, which I assume isn't included in your $7.5 million as it's been reported to cost $6 million by itself (at least for regular Falcon 9 -- not sure if the Heavy fairing is different). They've been working on fairing recovery, but have yet to succeed. EDIT: scratch that, apparently the recovered the fairings as well per a comment below. Neat!