3 ms·

Yup! The Saturn V cost $5k per kg to LEO. Best case, SpaceX has a ~2x savings over the tech we had in the 1960s. The Soyuz 2.1a is competitively priced and it's

Yup! The Saturn V cost $5k per kg to LEO. Best case, SpaceX has a ~2x savings over the tech we had in the 1960s. The Soyuz 2.1a is competitively priced and it's still launching, though we can't really compare since we only know the price and not the actual cost of the launch. The tradeoffs SpaceX has made have some real cost savings. Problem is that it's not anywhere even remotely close to what they want you to believe it is.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Saturn V cost $5k per kg to LEO. Best case, SpaceX has a ~2x savings over the tech we had in the 1960s NASA begs to disagree, showing Falcon 9 at $2,720 per kg and Falcon Heavy at $1,400 per kg [1]. This is the cheapest launch platform on the planet, apart from, perhaps, the PSLV [2]. And those are their prices, not costs. The runners up are Proton, Long March 3B and Ariane 5G at $4,320; $4,412; and $9,167 per kg respectively [3]. There simply isn't competitive pressure to push SpaceX's prices down. Particularly in heavy. Ignoring the tremendous leaps we've made in launch economics over the past two decades, largely as a result of SpaceX, is naïvely dismissive. Yes, they talk a bigger game than they bring. But they're still bringing some big fucking game. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200001093 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200001093 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#cite_note-Trends-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...