3 ms·
The author trots out the "$10,000 a pound" launch cost which is really indicative of the overall quality of the article. For non-Space Wonks, the "$10,000/lb"
by giantrobot 5y ago
The author trots out the "$10,000 a pound" launch cost which is really indicative of the overall quality of the article.
For non-Space Wonks, the "$10,000/lb" to orbit number was the rough cost of launching some payload on the Space Shuttle to orbit. Costs for the Space Shuttle were basically NASA's entire manned spaceflight budget divided by the number of Shuttle launches performed in a year. It's not just a naive number it's wholly misleading.
No/few commercial space launch approach $10k/lb. It's a meaningless number for any discussion of launch costs since the Space Shuttle is retired and was not a commercial launch vehicle anyways. Even the most expensive ULA rockets aren't even close to that price.
If you're going to talk about space launch capabilities and bring up stupid numbers it impacts your credibility.
- elurg 5y agoThe author mentions $10000/kg, not per pound. This number is reasonably accurate for recent launch within one order of magnitude. Starlink launches were claimed to cost $35 million for 16 tons, this means SpaceX is still around $2000/kg even internally. This is the lowest cost of "real" missions with payload adapters and deployment mechanisms. Atlas 551 is ~150M for max 18.8tons to orbit so best theoretical price is > $8000/kg. Dividing the space shuttle program cost of $196B by 133 successful launches and a max payload of 23tons you get around $64000/kg.