4 ms·

So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. But I'm not an expert, or even a knowledgeable amateur, in this area. What's the reasoning be

So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. But I'm not an expert, or even a knowledgeable amateur, in this area. What's the reasoning behind your scepticism? More information would be good, it's an interesting subject.

afgasgbui 5y ago
>So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. They built competitive rockets. That's a big deal and I don't wish to diminish that. They promised magic 99% cost savings and are nowhere close.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I googled. It seems they're at a 40% reduction as of Oct 2020 [0] for Falcon launches of government satellites, and could go lower but there's politics involved - as always in government-funded anything. Is that correct? If so, then that's not "nowhere close", it's another order of magnitude away, for sure, but the high-volume approach of Spaceship could do that? Or not? [0] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/05/how-much-cheaper-are-spacex-reusable-rockets-now-w/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/05/how-much-cheaper-a...
- jcims 5y ago
  Do we know their costs though? Even if they did achieve 99%, whats the incentive to reduce prices that far while the volume is this low?
- Geee 5y ago
  They're getting closer. If they achieve rapid reusability with Super Heavy Starship then it'll be close to 99% reduction in costs.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  Market competition sets prices. Marginal cost = price only when you have competitive. Otherwise, you cannot use the advertised mission prices to determine their costs. They could invent a rocket that does $500/kg to LEO and it wouldn't matter one iota to their actual costs if 1) demand doesn't go up and 2) competition doesn't exist.
- relativ575 5y ago
  I don't remember if they promise 99% cost saving as you mentioned, but even if that's correct it's about Starship, at some unspecified point in future once they have flown regularly. They definitely didn't promise any such saving for 2021 launches. If Starship hasn't flown, how can they be "nowhere close"?
qayxc 5y ago
> So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. That's not true. They've achieved parts of what they set out for, yes. The important parts, too. But far from everything. Just one example, because that irks me every time someone brings up nonsense like Starship point-to-point as a realistic option: SpaceX planned to achieve a turnaround time for F9 of 24 hours. So far, the best they could do is 27 days. I won't get into why faster turnaround times are actually irrelevant for F9, but it goes to show that reality and plans don't always align even with SpaceX. Now with regards to the turnaround time, people with be quick to point out that this beat the Shuttle record of 54 days, but then again the F9 in question wasn't a crewed mission and doesn't reuse its upper stage, so... Another reason for healthy scepticism is the lack of cold hard numbers regarding the system. We cannot know the total system cost yet or the launch cost, because neither the final spec system nor its launch infrastructure exists. The number can also be very deceiving: the STS had an estimated $2000/kg to LEO goal and that was realistic back in he 1970s. Why? Because the calculation assumed ~50 launches per year and lots of cargo missions. Instead, the shuttle launched only 4.5 times a year and the launch cost increased dramatically after the 1986 Challenger disaster and again after the 2003 Columbia accident due to safety procedures and maintenance. In addition all launch facilities, infrastructure costs and R&D are priced into the Shuttle launch cost (e.g. total program cost divided by number of missions), which is impossible to do for Starship since we don't know the R&D or infrastructure costs. Just throwing a number like $1000/kg into the ring is pretty meaningless as you need to provide context as well (number of launches per year, unit- and infrastructure costs, R&D costs, etc.). It's also important to keep in mind that this is the number SpaceX wants to achieve eventually, e.g. not with the first launch. F9 launch costs haven't decreased either and NASA and the DoD in particular still pay a hefty premium compared to business customers. We'll see.
- smaddox 5y ago
  F9 launch costs haven't decreased for customers. That in no way implies they haven't decreased for SpaceX. Why would Space X reduce the cost for customers below what they are willing to pay?
  - cromwellian 5y ago

afgasgbui 5y ago

>So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. They built competitive rockets. That's a big deal and I don't wish to diminish that. They promised magic 99% cost savings and are nowhere close.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I googled. It seems they're at a 40% reduction as of Oct 2020 [0] for Falcon launches of government satellites, and could go lower but there's politics involved - as always in government-funded anything. Is that correct? If so, then that's not "nowhere close", it's another order of magnitude away, for sure, but the high-volume approach of Spaceship could do that? Or not? [0] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/05/how-much-cheaper-are-spacex-reusable-rockets-now-w/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/05/how-much-cheaper-a...
jcims 5y ago
Do we know their costs though? Even if they did achieve 99%, whats the incentive to reduce prices that far while the volume is this low?
Geee 5y ago
They're getting closer. If they achieve rapid reusability with Super Heavy Starship then it'll be close to 99% reduction in costs.
cromwellian 5y ago
Market competition sets prices. Marginal cost = price only when you have competitive. Otherwise, you cannot use the advertised mission prices to determine their costs. They could invent a rocket that does $500/kg to LEO and it wouldn't matter one iota to their actual costs if 1) demand doesn't go up and 2) competition doesn't exist.
relativ575 5y ago
I don't remember if they promise 99% cost saving as you mentioned, but even if that's correct it's about Starship, at some unspecified point in future once they have flown regularly. They definitely didn't promise any such saving for 2021 launches. If Starship hasn't flown, how can they be "nowhere close"?

qayxc 5y ago

> So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. That's not true. They've achieved parts of what they set out for, yes. The important parts, too. But far from everything. Just one example, because that irks me every time someone brings up nonsense like Starship point-to-point as a realistic option: SpaceX planned to achieve a turnaround time for F9 of 24 hours. So far, the best they could do is 27 days. I won't get into why faster turnaround times are actually irrelevant for F9, but it goes to show that reality and plans don't always align even with SpaceX. Now with regards to the turnaround time, people with be quick to point out that this beat the Shuttle record of 54 days, but then again the F9 in question wasn't a crewed mission and doesn't reuse its upper stage, so... Another reason for healthy scepticism is the lack of cold hard numbers regarding the system. We cannot know the total system cost yet or the launch cost, because neither the final spec system nor its launch infrastructure exists. The number can also be very deceiving: the STS had an estimated $2000/kg to LEO goal and that was realistic back in he 1970s. Why? Because the calculation assumed ~50 launches per year and lots of cargo missions. Instead, the shuttle launched only 4.5 times a year and the launch cost increased dramatically after the 1986 Challenger disaster and again after the 2003 Columbia accident due to safety procedures and maintenance. In addition all launch facilities, infrastructure costs and R&D are priced into the Shuttle launch cost (e.g. total program cost divided by number of missions), which is impossible to do for Starship since we don't know the R&D or infrastructure costs. Just throwing a number like $1000/kg into the ring is pretty meaningless as you need to provide context as well (number of launches per year, unit- and infrastructure costs, R&D costs, etc.). It's also important to keep in mind that this is the number SpaceX wants to achieve eventually, e.g. not with the first launch. F9 launch costs haven't decreased either and NASA and the DoD in particular still pay a hefty premium compared to business customers. We'll see.

smaddox 5y ago
F9 launch costs haven't decreased for customers. That in no way implies they haven't decreased for SpaceX. Why would Space X reduce the cost for customers below what they are willing to pay?
- cromwellian 5y ago