3 ms·
The cost per kg to orbit on a Falcon 9 is about half of what it was on an Atlas, $7,000/kg vs $15,000/kg That is a significant change, but I do not think it is
by bryanlarsen 2y ago
The cost per kg to orbit on a Falcon 9 is about half of what it was on an Atlas, $7,000/kg vs $15,000/kg That is a significant change, but I do not think it is a radical enough change to significantly alter the market.
The radical change was Moore's law. You can have more capability in a tiny cubesat today than you used to have in a satellite that weighed a ton. It was Moore's law that enabled Planet Labs and all of the new LEO constellations, not low launch cost.
Starship might provide a radical change in launch costs. More likely SpaceX will keep most of the gain for itself, charging similar prices and pocketing the difference.
- didgeoridoo 2y agoI think you may be comparing the Atlas dedicated launch price to SpaceX’s ridesharing price. SpaceX dedicated is closer to $1,500/kg now. It seems plausible that a full order of magnitude difference could support use cases that otherwise wouldn’t make much sense. (I can’t find Atlas ridesharing prices anywhere so apologies if that is indeed their rideshare price).
- bryanlarsen 2y agoFalcon 9 is volume limited, not mass limited. It's difficult to launch more than about 10 tons in a Falcon 9. Starlink does it, but Starlink is the exception, not the rule. For example, the OneWeb launches on Falcon9 were 6,000kg -- they would have launched more satellites per rocket if they could have. $67M / 10 tonnes + fees = $7000/kg.