4 ms·

As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was alr

by xoa 6y ago

As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was already under $1 million and that they're aiming for <$250k each with 2.0. That'd mean those three cost, at most and prototype status aside, a few million. That's just really not expensive in rocketry, or big machine early development in general. Even ignoring all other investment they can get, they're probably making at least $10-20m+ net income per commercial launch of the F9 at this point. So every single launch could cover multiple Starship tests. It's really wild how frugal it is compared to what everyone has become used to in rocketry, and in turn the kinds of things they can try. Edit: just for context at the polar opposite end of the scale, "NASA will pay $146 million for each SLS rocket engine" (they need four per launch, and they're all thrown away each time). https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...

someperson 6y ago
Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.
- belval 6y ago
  SpaceX will not go bankrupt or have trouble raising money in the near future. Their ace in the hole is doing an IPO. With the current craze people would throw incredible amount of money at them. Talk to investors and everyone is bullish on SpaceX because they have a good moat, strong revenues and growth potential.
- xoa 6y ago
  To clarify, I wasn't saying they were fully self-funding, just giving some additional context to "not that expensive". Given that they have hordes of investors willing to throw money at them (and for decent reason for once), they'd be foolish to significantly slow bootstrapping through the more capex heavy part of the roadmap rather then doing multiple programs at once, particularly when said programs have real synergy. But if for some odd reason they had to go it alone, it's so cheap and F9 beats others so thoroughly that they probably actually could at this point, which is a wild thing to write about super heavy rocket R&D. It'd make everything take many years longer though, and they'd have to prioritize differently.
  - someperson 6y ago
    I should also mention there is the Artemis HLS down-select coming up in a few weeks where the Lunar Starship should net SpaceX another $2 billion of funding (assuming they're selected). For those unfamiliar, here's a great overview of the Artemis HLS landing systems: https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 A private company developing a Super Heavy Lift Mars/Moon rocket and streaming the monthly tests online. Very exciting times.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mempko 6y ago
  It's funny that everyone thinks PE is the only source of capital from SpaceX. SpaceX gets most of their income from the government including generous subsidies like those for Starlink. In fact, SpaceX would not exist without the governmental effort to create a private space industry which has pumped a LOT of money into SpaceX and competitors. But the conversation is always around investors and not about those who actually made this possible, the American tax payer.
  - avmich 6y ago
    SpaceX does sell a solid chunk of their launches to US government departments, but those departments save on those launches quite a bit - so American taxpayer benefits there. It's true that SpaceX was helped by NASA after they got their first successful launches of Falcon-1, that help was important and allowed skipping Falcon-5. However that's the regular way American taxpayers - represented by those government departments - operate: they grow markets of new products and services, and then both benefit from new offerings and receive tax from them, while public has more chances for personal enrichment. In some sense, yes, it's American taxpayer who makes all that - including favorable legal environment - possible; on the other hand, investors are the standard way, the means how that is done. It's odd to see taxpayers and investors as completely opposing entities.
Stevvo 6y ago
I find hard to believe they could ever get the cost of a rocket engine down to less than that of a small gas turbine like a PT6. That said, SpaceX has made a habit of defying my expectations in the past.
- davidgould 6y ago
  I wonder quite why something like a PT6 costs so much. The development costs are surely paid off by now, and it’s produced in fairly high volume, but it remains expensive. Maybe SpaceX should get into aircraft engines?
  - pas 6y ago
    How many hours does a PT6 usually has to work before it has to be replaced? How similar is a turbopump on the Raptor to the PT6?
    - Stevvo 6y ago
      Depends on the exact model, but PT-6 TBO is usually around 4500 hours. I'd imagine the turbopump is mechanically similar, just much bigger.
  - Stevvo 6y ago
    Some manufacturers have a monopoly in a certain class of engine thanks to type certification. The certification and liability that comes with it are prohibitively expensive for new comers. The PT-6 is an example of this; in North America, it stands alone, undisputed king of it's class. What's ridiculous is that turbine engines are simple. More simple than piston engines, and everyone and their dog can build a piston engine.

by xoa 6y ago

someperson 6y ago

Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.

belval 6y ago
SpaceX will not go bankrupt or have trouble raising money in the near future. Their ace in the hole is doing an IPO. With the current craze people would throw incredible amount of money at them. Talk to investors and everyone is bullish on SpaceX because they have a good moat, strong revenues and growth potential.
xoa 6y ago
To clarify, I wasn't saying they were fully self-funding, just giving some additional context to "not that expensive". Given that they have hordes of investors willing to throw money at them (and for decent reason for once), they'd be foolish to significantly slow bootstrapping through the more capex heavy part of the roadmap rather then doing multiple programs at once, particularly when said programs have real synergy. But if for some odd reason they had to go it alone, it's so cheap and F9 beats others so thoroughly that they probably actually could at this point, which is a wild thing to write about super heavy rocket R&D. It'd make everything take many years longer though, and they'd have to prioritize differently.
- someperson 6y ago
  I should also mention there is the Artemis HLS down-select coming up in a few weeks where the Lunar Starship should net SpaceX another $2 billion of funding (assuming they're selected). For those unfamiliar, here's a great overview of the Artemis HLS landing systems: https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 https://youtu.be/WSg5UfFM7NY?t=47 A private company developing a Super Heavy Lift Mars/Moon rocket and streaming the monthly tests online. Very exciting times.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mempko 6y ago
It's funny that everyone thinks PE is the only source of capital from SpaceX. SpaceX gets most of their income from the government including generous subsidies like those for Starlink. In fact, SpaceX would not exist without the governmental effort to create a private space industry which has pumped a LOT of money into SpaceX and competitors. But the conversation is always around investors and not about those who actually made this possible, the American tax payer.
- avmich 6y ago
  SpaceX does sell a solid chunk of their launches to US government departments, but those departments save on those launches quite a bit - so American taxpayer benefits there. It's true that SpaceX was helped by NASA after they got their first successful launches of Falcon-1, that help was important and allowed skipping Falcon-5. However that's the regular way American taxpayers - represented by those government departments - operate: they grow markets of new products and services, and then both benefit from new offerings and receive tax from them, while public has more chances for personal enrichment. In some sense, yes, it's American taxpayer who makes all that - including favorable legal environment - possible; on the other hand, investors are the standard way, the means how that is done. It's odd to see taxpayers and investors as completely opposing entities.

Stevvo 6y ago

I find hard to believe they could ever get the cost of a rocket engine down to less than that of a small gas turbine like a PT6. That said, SpaceX has made a habit of defying my expectations in the past.

davidgould 6y ago
I wonder quite why something like a PT6 costs so much. The development costs are surely paid off by now, and it’s produced in fairly high volume, but it remains expensive. Maybe SpaceX should get into aircraft engines?
- pas 6y ago
  How many hours does a PT6 usually has to work before it has to be replaced? How similar is a turbopump on the Raptor to the PT6?
  - Stevvo 6y ago
    Depends on the exact model, but PT-6 TBO is usually around 4500 hours. I'd imagine the turbopump is mechanically similar, just much bigger.
- Stevvo 6y ago
  Some manufacturers have a monopoly in a certain class of engine thanks to type certification. The certification and liability that comes with it are prohibitively expensive for new comers. The PT-6 is an example of this; in North America, it stands alone, undisputed king of it's class. What's ridiculous is that turbine engines are simple. More simple than piston engines, and everyone and their dog can build a piston engine.