2 ms·

> Prices for rockets similar to Starship are in the $150-200M range, so that is more the ballpark I expect from Starship Why would they even develop this new v

> Prices for rockets similar to Starship are in the $150-200M range, so that is more the ballpark I expect from Starship Why would they even develop this new vehicle if it turns out more expensive than Falcon 9, or Falcon 9 Heavy? That would not make any sense. Plus those rockets are not reusable. They have already achieved a reduction in price/kg by at least 10x with Falcon, see page 11 here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170009968/downloads/20170009968.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170009968/downloads/20... > $10M is fantasy $2M is the fantasy, I already added 400% to account for skepticism. Starship is not a conventional launch vehicle, it's designed for full reusability with a turnaround time measured in hours (vs the current 14-50 days for a Falcon 9 refurb), like an airplane. Land, refuel, safety checks, fly again.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> Why would they even develop this new vehicle if it turns out more expensive than Falcon 9, or Falcon 9 Heavy? That would not make any sense. Plus those rockets are not reusable. They are making a bigger rocket and making it reusable. The bigger the rocket, the more expensive the launch. For Starship the price per ton should be smaller than for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but that doesn't mean it should be expected to be cheaper in absolute terms than much smaller rockets. > $2M is the fantasy, I already added 400% to account for skepticism. You're still talking about a price that would be a hundred times better per ton than any other rocket in history. Allow me to be extremely skeptical, please. Musk's arbitrary promises do not set a benchmark for me - he has been known to lie through his teeth about things like hyperloop, FSD, Neuralink, Starship earth to earth, and timelines in general. And on the same note, what Starship is theoretically designed to do and what it will actually do when it is actually deployed may be significantly different things.

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Why would they even develop this new vehicle if it turns out more expensive than Falcon 9, or Falcon 9 Heavy? That would not make any sense. Plus those rockets are not reusable. They are making a bigger rocket and making it reusable. The bigger the rocket, the more expensive the launch. For Starship the price per ton should be smaller than for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but that doesn't mean it should be expected to be cheaper in absolute terms than much smaller rockets. > $2M is the fantasy, I already added 400% to account for skepticism. You're still talking about a price that would be a hundred times better per ton than any other rocket in history. Allow me to be extremely skeptical, please. Musk's arbitrary promises do not set a benchmark for me - he has been known to lie through his teeth about things like hyperloop, FSD, Neuralink, Starship earth to earth, and timelines in general. And on the same note, what Starship is theoretically designed to do and what it will actually do when it is actually deployed may be significantly different things.