4 ms·

TL;DR: Spacex is literally 4000x cheaper but maybe SLS is worth it because of warm fuzzies.

by foreigner 4y ago

rleahy22 4y ago
That cost is based entirely on projections for a rocket that itself has not left orbit yet.
- generj 4y ago
  Neither has SLS entered orbit to be fair, and it had a massive development budget and a half decade head start (plus existing engines). Everyone is taking Starship reuse as an assumption because of SpaceX’s earlier work. It will likely be less easy than people think with such a massive vehicle, but even fully expended mode Starship will loft far more mass at less than an eighth of the cost of a SLS launch.
aero-glide2 4y ago
SLS costs $4B/launch. It is impossible that Starship will be sold for just $1M/launch.
- pageandrew 4y ago
  Why not $10m?
- _g4ls 4y ago
  You've got to consider vastly different payload capacity as well.
  - AshleyGrant 4y ago
    SLS has about 50% more lift capacity to LEO based on a quick google search. But Starship still can lift 100 metric tons to LEO. How much stuff are we launching that needs SLS's lift capability that couldn't be launched across multiple launches and assembled in space?
hinkley 4y ago
I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping you. SpaceX's goal was, as I recall, at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper per kilogram to orbit. We know they've had trouble with that, they're producing bigger and simpler rocket engines to try to boost that. One article I found suggests they're at around 2% of the cost of a ride on the Shuttle, but the Shuttle was never the cheapest way to orbit. 25x cheaper is still front page news, but it's not the 100x they hoped, and it's certainly not 4000x.
- foreigner 4y ago
  I'm just using the numbers from the article.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Seems like a bit of amateur hour over at space.com > If that mission is successful, SpaceX will have taken its super heavy-lift vehicle from the drawing board and into space in far less time than it took NASA to do the same with the SLS. SpaceX's goal is to build an entire fleet of Starships and launch multiple vehicles on a daily basis, at an average launch cost of $1 million or thereabouts. Yeah so the problem with that is that Falcon Heavy launches cost 97 million, which is 42x cheaper, not 4000x times cheaper. This means SpaceX thinks they're going to get another 2 orders of magnitude out of the launch costs? Okay Elon. Also I think they may be comparing the cost of the launch in fuel and manpower, hopefully for launch and recovery, but ignoring the cost of the rocket, and possibly the cost of cycling the rocket back to the pad.
senectus1 4y ago
SLS is ready now. Starship hasn't yet reached even the Kármán line. we don't get to go to space with what we'd like to have, we go with what we have. It's costing a LOT yes, but time is of the essence. Arguably we waited too long to do this again.

TL;DR: Spacex is literally 4000x cheaper but maybe SLS is worth it because of warm fuzzies.

rleahy22 4y ago

That cost is based entirely on projections for a rocket that itself has not left orbit yet.

generj 4y ago
Neither has SLS entered orbit to be fair, and it had a massive development budget and a half decade head start (plus existing engines). Everyone is taking Starship reuse as an assumption because of SpaceX’s earlier work. It will likely be less easy than people think with such a massive vehicle, but even fully expended mode Starship will loft far more mass at less than an eighth of the cost of a SLS launch.

aero-glide2 4y ago

SLS costs $4B/launch. It is impossible that Starship will be sold for just $1M/launch.

pageandrew 4y ago
Why not $10m?
_g4ls 4y ago
You've got to consider vastly different payload capacity as well.
- AshleyGrant 4y ago
  SLS has about 50% more lift capacity to LEO based on a quick google search. But Starship still can lift 100 metric tons to LEO. How much stuff are we launching that needs SLS's lift capability that couldn't be launched across multiple launches and assembled in space?

hinkley 4y ago

I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping you. SpaceX's goal was, as I recall, at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper per kilogram to orbit. We know they've had trouble with that, they're producing bigger and simpler rocket engines to try to boost that. One article I found suggests they're at around 2% of the cost of a ride on the Shuttle, but the Shuttle was never the cheapest way to orbit. 25x cheaper is still front page news, but it's not the 100x they hoped, and it's certainly not 4000x.

foreigner 4y ago
I'm just using the numbers from the article.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Seems like a bit of amateur hour over at space.com > If that mission is successful, SpaceX will have taken its super heavy-lift vehicle from the drawing board and into space in far less time than it took NASA to do the same with the SLS. SpaceX's goal is to build an entire fleet of Starships and launch multiple vehicles on a daily basis, at an average launch cost of $1 million or thereabouts. Yeah so the problem with that is that Falcon Heavy launches cost 97 million, which is 42x cheaper, not 4000x times cheaper. This means SpaceX thinks they're going to get another 2 orders of magnitude out of the launch costs? Okay Elon. Also I think they may be comparing the cost of the launch in fuel and manpower, hopefully for launch and recovery, but ignoring the cost of the rocket, and possibly the cost of cycling the rocket back to the pad.

senectus1 4y ago

SLS is ready now. Starship hasn't yet reached even the Kármán line. we don't get to go to space with what we'd like to have, we go with what we have. It's costing a LOT yes, but time is of the essence. Arguably we waited too long to do this again.