3 ms·
If the optimistic guess is $40M, wouldn't things have to go really, really, really wrong for it to be anywhere near the $1.3 Billion? I mean, those numbers aren
by kulahan 3y ago
If the optimistic guess is $40M, wouldn't things have to go really, really, really wrong for it to be anywhere near the $1.3 Billion? I mean, those numbers aren't exactly close at all. Even if it's naively optimistic, it still seems unquestionable that it'll be a lot cheaper, no? Am I missing something?
- daveguy 3y agoThat's 20 launches for 1 lunar mission. Vs 1 Artemis launch per lunar mission. Comparable to 800 million for 1 lunar mission for SpaceX. So, 4.1 / .8 ... Starship would need to be 5.125 times the cost estimated to cost as much as Artemis. As others pointed out, it relies on un-tested in-orbit refueling and 20 times the opportunity for launch failure. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 5x off. I don't know what SpaceX's overrun record is so far, but I'm sure it's way less than 5x. Edit: It did take 20 tries[0] to get from the first launch of Falcon 9 to vertical landing (after a detour through parachuting systems). 40 million seems like a post-development estimate. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_flight_20 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_flight_20
- avmich 3y agoApples and oranges. Starship delivers far more to the Moon surface in one flight, which is handy if somebody wants to actually stay on the Moon for prolonged activity. And on a per-kilogram on the Moon surface comparison Starship is quite competitive.