6 ms·

>Just think what space telescopes will be like if the Starship reduces cost/kg to orbit to 1/10th or less of Falcon 9's already low cost. Falcon 9 is around $6

>Just think what space telescopes will be like if the Starship reduces cost/kg to orbit to 1/10th or less of Falcon 9's already low cost. Falcon 9 is around $60 million/launch (though when contracted by NASA or the military, launches tend to be 2x-4x the price). This is pretty much inline with what you get from Arianespace, and Roscosmos. There is no path to reduce price by another order of magnitude. We've pretty much hit the limit on what we can do with chemical rockets.

pfdietz 3y ago
Falcon 9's price is a bit below its competitors. But remember, cost != price. There is not much reason for SpaceX to reduce the price further, if demand is sufficiently inelastic. There is room to reduce cost much further. Discarding the second stage is a large cost. The propellants used by F9 cost $200K/launch, according to Musk. With full reusability costs should fall at least another order of magnitude.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >There is not much reason for SpaceX to reduce the price further, if demand is sufficiently inelastic. Or they can't, because there are physical limits to the chemical rocket technology. >There is room to reduce cost much further. Discarding the second stage is a large cost ... with full reusability costs should fall at least another order of magnitude. Reusability is not a panacea. Falcon 9 is partially reusable and it is not significantly (if at all) cheaper than the competition. There is no evidence that full reusability will provide an order of magnitude cost decrease in prices. Fully reusable rockets imply that you're cutting into your cargo space (because you have to ship extra fuel for the decent), and maintenance is expensive and time-consuming. Don't get me wrong, there may be costs savings there, but not 10x, more like 10%.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > Or they can't, because there are physical limits to the chemical rocket technology. Awfully coincidental it happens to cost just slightly less than than the competitors.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    > Falcon 9 is partially reusable and it is not significantly (if at all) cheaper than the competition. No, that's just you stupidly confusing price and cost.
wolfram74 3y ago
Or, since there's no downward pressure on price, it's equally valid to say we've hit the limit of what we can do with capitalism in the current ecosystem.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Price won't approach cost until there's another competitor with similar costs. But China is heading strongly in that direction, working on a F9 clone (and perhaps more than one; there are many quasi-private launch efforts there). I'm sure Musk knows F9's life as a money-printing machine is finite.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >Or, since there's no downward pressure on price, it's equally valid to say we've hit the limit of what we can do with capitalism in the current ecosystem. There is downward pressure, we're just hitting physical limits on what can be done with chemical rockets.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Please stop with this nonsense. It's obviously wrong. The mere existence of the Starship design, which doesn't break any physical laws, shows your claim is nonsense.
    - macspoofing 3y ago
      >It's obviously wrong Obviously wrong how? I saw that Musk was claiming that launch costs for starship will be around $1-2 million at some point - probably after hyperloop launches as a "5th mode of transport" in Neverland.

pfdietz 3y ago

Falcon 9's price is a bit below its competitors. But remember, cost != price. There is not much reason for SpaceX to reduce the price further, if demand is sufficiently inelastic. There is room to reduce cost much further. Discarding the second stage is a large cost. The propellants used by F9 cost $200K/launch, according to Musk. With full reusability costs should fall at least another order of magnitude.

macspoofing 3y ago
>There is not much reason for SpaceX to reduce the price further, if demand is sufficiently inelastic. Or they can't, because there are physical limits to the chemical rocket technology. >There is room to reduce cost much further. Discarding the second stage is a large cost ... with full reusability costs should fall at least another order of magnitude. Reusability is not a panacea. Falcon 9 is partially reusable and it is not significantly (if at all) cheaper than the competition. There is no evidence that full reusability will provide an order of magnitude cost decrease in prices. Fully reusable rockets imply that you're cutting into your cargo space (because you have to ship extra fuel for the decent), and maintenance is expensive and time-consuming. Don't get me wrong, there may be costs savings there, but not 10x, more like 10%.
- kortilla 3y ago
  > Or they can't, because there are physical limits to the chemical rocket technology. Awfully coincidental it happens to cost just slightly less than than the competitors.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  > Falcon 9 is partially reusable and it is not significantly (if at all) cheaper than the competition. No, that's just you stupidly confusing price and cost.

wolfram74 3y ago

Or, since there's no downward pressure on price, it's equally valid to say we've hit the limit of what we can do with capitalism in the current ecosystem.

pfdietz 3y ago
Price won't approach cost until there's another competitor with similar costs. But China is heading strongly in that direction, working on a F9 clone (and perhaps more than one; there are many quasi-private launch efforts there). I'm sure Musk knows F9's life as a money-printing machine is finite.
macspoofing 3y ago
>Or, since there's no downward pressure on price, it's equally valid to say we've hit the limit of what we can do with capitalism in the current ecosystem. There is downward pressure, we're just hitting physical limits on what can be done with chemical rockets.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Please stop with this nonsense. It's obviously wrong. The mere existence of the Starship design, which doesn't break any physical laws, shows your claim is nonsense.
  - macspoofing 3y ago
    >It's obviously wrong Obviously wrong how? I saw that Musk was claiming that launch costs for starship will be around $1-2 million at some point - probably after hyperloop launches as a "5th mode of transport" in Neverland.