4 ms·

> Starlink launches are costing nowhere near that. [citation needed] > First, you're ignoring reuse. SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. They have so

by mlyle 4y ago

> Starlink launches are costing nowhere near that. [citation needed] > First, you're ignoring reuse. SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. They have some margin, of course. > They may not discount external customers for this They did reduce prices when reuse became viable. > Third, a big cost in satellite launches in insurance costs. Launches can fail so insurance costs are really high. Insurance isn't included in the $67M figure. SpaceX has self-insured, so, when the Feb 2022 batch failed, that was a launch and set of satlelites that was paid for that did not enlarge the constellation. Finally, the satellites themselves surely cost something.

tuatoru 4y ago
> SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. That's the price, not the cost. They only need to reduce price a bit below their competitors' in order to get the price-sensitive business. That price tells us only that their cost per launch is below $67M, not how far below that it is. We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity I don't think launch costs can be below $5M on a fully amortised Falcon 9. There're the expended upper stage and fairing, NASA/FAA admin and facility charges, and ground crew. And fuel, which is pretty much a small item in the "miscellanous" budget category. The satellites have been guesstimated at $300K each. SpaceX is trying very hard to reduce their cost, whatever it is. Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > That's the price, not the cost. I think my next sentence makes it clear that I understand they have margin. Quoting one sentence of my post, and then "disagreeing" with it in a way that is covered by my next sentence.. is such an unfortunate discussion tactic.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity Given that the only advantage of re-usability is cost (at least at the moment) and Falcon 9 is still more expensive than Soyuz for a third party, I don't see why they would have a significant margin. > Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction. There's no getting away from the fact that electronics that need to work in space (and survive launch) are more complex and expensive than those on earth. The economies of scale may simply not be there.

by mlyle 4y ago

tuatoru 4y ago

> SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. That's the price, not the cost. They only need to reduce price a bit below their competitors' in order to get the price-sensitive business. That price tells us only that their cost per launch is below $67M, not how far below that it is. We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity I don't think launch costs can be below $5M on a fully amortised Falcon 9. There're the expended upper stage and fairing, NASA/FAA admin and facility charges, and ground crew. And fuel, which is pretty much a small item in the "miscellanous" budget category. The satellites have been guesstimated at $300K each. SpaceX is trying very hard to reduce their cost, whatever it is. Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.

mlyle 4y ago
> That's the price, not the cost. I think my next sentence makes it clear that I understand they have margin. Quoting one sentence of my post, and then "disagreeing" with it in a way that is covered by my next sentence.. is such an unfortunate discussion tactic.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity Given that the only advantage of re-usability is cost (at least at the moment) and Falcon 9 is still more expensive than Soyuz for a third party, I don't see why they would have a significant margin. > Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction. There's no getting away from the fact that electronics that need to work in space (and survive launch) are more complex and expensive than those on earth. The economies of scale may simply not be there.