5 ms·

The problem is that for Starship to hit that $10M price point, SpaceX will have to demonstrate several as of yet unproven capabilities: In-space refueling (requ

The problem is that for Starship to hit that $10M price point, SpaceX will have to demonstrate several as of yet unproven capabilities: In-space refueling (required for any missions outside LEO), safe and reliable re-entry from orbit, and fast turnaround for Starship to be launch-ready after landing. The last thing NASA needs is a glorified Space Shuttle 2.0 that takes months to be rebuilt after each re-entry, and has the constant risk of the crew burning up on re-entry. Fortunately, it's looking increasingly less likely that this will be the case, but NASA is right to not put all of its eggs in the Starship basket. For what its worth, if Starship does succeed in being a cheap and re-usable super-heavy launcher, NASA can always just stop making SLS (presumably after giving the senators for Alabama sufficiently large bribes) and switch to Starship for super-heavy launches.

kiba 5y ago
It doesn't matter if Starship can't do all of these. It will still be likely cheaper and more capable than NASA's SLS, even if it's capable of only launching one time. Remember, SpaceX is engineering a production line to make Starship, not just prototyping Starshipp.
- dangerbird2 5y ago
  > That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. [citation needed]
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Look at how fast they can build an upper stage with basic materials and standard welders from the oil industry. The engine cost is reportedly already under 1M and they are building a huge factory t produce more. Even under the worst assumption, where I take conservative assumptions and then double them you still end up with cost comparable to Falcon Heavy.
panick21_ 5y ago
Even if you assume only basic first stage re-usability (that is well proven). That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. And for what it is worth, SLS should be canceled no matter if Starship exists or not. Its a program that embodies everything bad about the modern space industry and space policy.
- tehbeard 5y ago
  Several problems with that. One, it's Congress' baby.. ain't noone taking it out behind the barn. Second, you need redundancy. If something is proven bad with falcon or starship design... You don't want another situation like we had with the shuttles where your paying for Soyuz seats for years on end while the problem is debugged and mitigated. Iirc, NASA is trying to shift SLS production to the private sector, to try and "get rid" of this ugly duckling.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > Second, you need redundancy. No you don't. Just as there was no redundancy for Saturn V. As there is not for Falcon Heavy. There was no redundancy for Delta 4 Heavy. There is always a largest rocket. And if you do need redundancy, SLS is not how you would get there. If Starship doesn't work, then there will simply be no moon landing. Period. > Iirc, NASA is trying to shift SLS production to the private sector, to try and "get rid" of this ugly duckling. That is just contract mombo jumbo that changes nothing about the actual project.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Once it becomes Somebody Else's Problem, and not NASA's, then NASA can quietly abandon it. Since nobody else will want to pay for even a single launch, it may then die a final death.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        > Once it becomes Somebody Else's Problem, and not NASA's, then NASA can quietly abandon it No, what happens is that you create a seriously powerful group of private institutions that will go full force into lobbying congress to not kill the project. Even more so then now.
baggachipz 5y ago
> NASA is right to not put all of its eggs in the Starship basket. The problem is that not only are they not putting any eggs into the Starship basket, they aren't even aware (or admitting) that the basket even exists.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Citation needed; they are aware, and admitting is down to the PR department. Can't have a government branch openly express support to a corporate party that easily.
  - dangerbird2 5y ago
    A big reason why they selected SpaceX's proposal to use a variation on Starship as the Artemis lunar lander is for NASA to start subsidizing Starship's development.
- simonh 5y ago
  >not putting any eggs into the Starship basket HLS is a $2.89bn egg they have put in the Starship basket.
- stohk 5y ago
  The SpaceX HLS bid relies on starship working and they won* that award. I think NASA acknowledged the basket and threw 2 billion into it.
dr_orpheus 5y ago
Even with SpaceX's accomplishments in dramatically reducing launch costs, the $10M price point is still insane. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy advertised prices are ~$50 million and $90 million per launch. The actual launches and mission management for any more custom launch tend to push those prices to almost double. So to assume that a much larger as yet unproven rocket with launch for $10M seems quite out of range with the others. Even if $10M ends up being the material cost, SpaceX will still be recouping their development cost which is significant. Development of the Falcon 9 was $1.6 billion [0] and I think we can assume Starship will be more than that. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  Falcon9 still throws away the second stage every time. The idea of Starship being $10M is that it's fully reusable, so your marginal cost is only fuel/maintenance/launch.
  - dr_orpheus 5y ago
    Okay, according to Elon [0] the cost (to SpaceX) of a refurbished Falcon 9 is $15 million, $10 million of which is the upper stage as you say is not re-usable. So $5M for everything else for a rocket that gets 18k lbs to Low-earth-orbit. If we scale that up to the Starship (220k lbs to LEO) then lets estimate a re-use/refurb cost of $61M. So if a Falcon 9 costs $50M to launch, then 70% of that cost is SpaceX profit/recouping its design cost. Starship is supposed to be even more re-usable so lets assume that they only need 30% of the launch cost for recouping design costs/profit. This would be $87M/launch So my really aggressive estimate is still almost an order of magnitude higher, which is why I am doubtful. Lets also remember that SpaceX got $396M from NASA for the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon [1] [0] https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reused-falcon-9-elon-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/ https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reus... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Conception_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Conception_and_fundin...
    - 5y ago

kiba 5y ago

It doesn't matter if Starship can't do all of these. It will still be likely cheaper and more capable than NASA's SLS, even if it's capable of only launching one time. Remember, SpaceX is engineering a production line to make Starship, not just prototyping Starshipp.

dangerbird2 5y ago
> That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. [citation needed]
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Look at how fast they can build an upper stage with basic materials and standard welders from the oil industry. The engine cost is reportedly already under 1M and they are building a huge factory t produce more. Even under the worst assumption, where I take conservative assumptions and then double them you still end up with cost comparable to Falcon Heavy.

panick21_ 5y ago

Even if you assume only basic first stage re-usability (that is well proven). That is still a 200-ton to Orbit launcher for the cost of a Falcon 9 or cheaper. And for what it is worth, SLS should be canceled no matter if Starship exists or not. Its a program that embodies everything bad about the modern space industry and space policy.

tehbeard 5y ago
Several problems with that. One, it's Congress' baby.. ain't noone taking it out behind the barn. Second, you need redundancy. If something is proven bad with falcon or starship design... You don't want another situation like we had with the shuttles where your paying for Soyuz seats for years on end while the problem is debugged and mitigated. Iirc, NASA is trying to shift SLS production to the private sector, to try and "get rid" of this ugly duckling.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > Second, you need redundancy. No you don't. Just as there was no redundancy for Saturn V. As there is not for Falcon Heavy. There was no redundancy for Delta 4 Heavy. There is always a largest rocket. And if you do need redundancy, SLS is not how you would get there. If Starship doesn't work, then there will simply be no moon landing. Period. > Iirc, NASA is trying to shift SLS production to the private sector, to try and "get rid" of this ugly duckling. That is just contract mombo jumbo that changes nothing about the actual project.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Once it becomes Somebody Else's Problem, and not NASA's, then NASA can quietly abandon it. Since nobody else will want to pay for even a single launch, it may then die a final death.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      > Once it becomes Somebody Else's Problem, and not NASA's, then NASA can quietly abandon it No, what happens is that you create a seriously powerful group of private institutions that will go full force into lobbying congress to not kill the project. Even more so then now.

baggachipz 5y ago

> NASA is right to not put all of its eggs in the Starship basket. The problem is that not only are they not putting any eggs into the Starship basket, they aren't even aware (or admitting) that the basket even exists.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Citation needed; they are aware, and admitting is down to the PR department. Can't have a government branch openly express support to a corporate party that easily.
- dangerbird2 5y ago
  A big reason why they selected SpaceX's proposal to use a variation on Starship as the Artemis lunar lander is for NASA to start subsidizing Starship's development.
simonh 5y ago
>not putting any eggs into the Starship basket HLS is a $2.89bn egg they have put in the Starship basket.
stohk 5y ago
The SpaceX HLS bid relies on starship working and they won* that award. I think NASA acknowledged the basket and threw 2 billion into it.

dr_orpheus 5y ago

Even with SpaceX's accomplishments in dramatically reducing launch costs, the $10M price point is still insane. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy advertised prices are ~$50 million and $90 million per launch. The actual launches and mission management for any more custom launch tend to push those prices to almost double. So to assume that a much larger as yet unproven rocket with launch for $10M seems quite out of range with the others. Even if $10M ends up being the material cost, SpaceX will still be recouping their development cost which is significant. Development of the Falcon 9 was $1.6 billion [0] and I think we can assume Starship will be more than that. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

cecilpl2 5y ago
Falcon9 still throws away the second stage every time. The idea of Starship being $10M is that it's fully reusable, so your marginal cost is only fuel/maintenance/launch.
- dr_orpheus 5y ago
  Okay, according to Elon [0] the cost (to SpaceX) of a refurbished Falcon 9 is $15 million, $10 million of which is the upper stage as you say is not re-usable. So $5M for everything else for a rocket that gets 18k lbs to Low-earth-orbit. If we scale that up to the Starship (220k lbs to LEO) then lets estimate a re-use/refurb cost of $61M. So if a Falcon 9 costs $50M to launch, then 70% of that cost is SpaceX profit/recouping its design cost. Starship is supposed to be even more re-usable so lets assume that they only need 30% of the launch cost for recouping design costs/profit. This would be $87M/launch So my really aggressive estimate is still almost an order of magnitude higher, which is why I am doubtful. Lets also remember that SpaceX got $396M from NASA for the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon [1] [0] https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reused-falcon-9-elon-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/ https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reus... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Conception_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Conception_and_fundin...
  - 5y ago