5 ms·

Got lost in a rabbit hole after reading this news. Most incredible thing to me was that due to the reusability the per launch costs may end up being $2M (vs $18

Got lost in a rabbit hole after reading this news. Most incredible thing to me was that due to the reusability the per launch costs may end up being $2M (vs $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars - $1.23 billion in 2019 value for the Saturn V).

lemonspat 6y ago
Where did you get that $2M number from?
- dsp 6y ago
  https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
- valuearb 6y ago
  Fuel costs per launch will be about $500K, the remaining costs are dependent upon how many times both stages can be reused, maintenance costs, and launch/pad costs.
maccam94 6y ago
Note that the $2M is to launch a fully loaded (100 tons of payload) Starship into low earth orbit (LEO). Launching it further, such as to the Moon or Mars, requires refueling while in-orbit. I've seen estimates from Musk that it would take 6-7 launches of a tanker variant of Starship to deliver enough fuel to fill an empty Starship (it could be stockpiled in an orbital depot ahead of the main payload launch). So the total launch cost might be more like $15M for a fully-loaded ship. Which is still crazy cheap compared to SLS ($2B/launch), and Falcon 9 costs $15M just to get 13 tons into LEO.
- baq 6y ago
  ask any astronomer what they could do with extra $150M per launch and watch them salivate. also, this thing could lift JWST pretty much without that complex unfolding mechanism. genuinely exciting.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    The mirror of JWST is too wide - you'd still need the complex folding mechanism. edit: it's actually the mirror plus the sub shield that's too wide - the mirror by itself would even fit into an Ariane 5 fairing.
  - markonen 6y ago
    I've always wondered whether payloads weren't super-expensive precisely because the launches were, too. I mean, if you are spending hundreds of millions to launch something, that something better work once up there, right? So you spend 20 years engineering a "perfect" payload, the costs do what they always do, and now you have a billion-dollar payload. But if a launch was $2M and bookable with a month's lead time, you'd just de-risk the whole thing by having a simple-to-build, likely-to-work payload. Or ten. (This might not apply to something like the JWST specifically, since even a terrestial mirror of that size is a huge challenge. But I bet a lot of other kinds of science payloads will be built very differently a decade from now.)

lemonspat 6y ago

Where did you get that $2M number from?

dsp 6y ago
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
valuearb 6y ago
Fuel costs per launch will be about $500K, the remaining costs are dependent upon how many times both stages can be reused, maintenance costs, and launch/pad costs.

maccam94 6y ago

Note that the $2M is to launch a fully loaded (100 tons of payload) Starship into low earth orbit (LEO). Launching it further, such as to the Moon or Mars, requires refueling while in-orbit. I've seen estimates from Musk that it would take 6-7 launches of a tanker variant of Starship to deliver enough fuel to fill an empty Starship (it could be stockpiled in an orbital depot ahead of the main payload launch). So the total launch cost might be more like $15M for a fully-loaded ship. Which is still crazy cheap compared to SLS ($2B/launch), and Falcon 9 costs $15M just to get 13 tons into LEO.

baq 6y ago
ask any astronomer what they could do with extra $150M per launch and watch them salivate. also, this thing could lift JWST pretty much without that complex unfolding mechanism. genuinely exciting.
- qayxc 6y ago
  The mirror of JWST is too wide - you'd still need the complex folding mechanism. edit: it's actually the mirror plus the sub shield that's too wide - the mirror by itself would even fit into an Ariane 5 fairing.
- markonen 6y ago
  I've always wondered whether payloads weren't super-expensive precisely because the launches were, too. I mean, if you are spending hundreds of millions to launch something, that something better work once up there, right? So you spend 20 years engineering a "perfect" payload, the costs do what they always do, and now you have a billion-dollar payload. But if a launch was $2M and bookable with a month's lead time, you'd just de-risk the whole thing by having a simple-to-build, likely-to-work payload. Or ten. (This might not apply to something like the JWST specifically, since even a terrestial mirror of that size is a huge challenge. But I bet a lot of other kinds of science payloads will be built very differently a decade from now.)