4 ms·

> SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their prici

> SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their pricing per kg has fallen by about half since then. Attributing this directly to reusability isn’t straightforward, since they’ve also introduced new launch vehicles. However, it’s pretty clear that booster reuse is part of their economic model, without which they could never achieve profitability. SpaceX (not) coincidentally being the owner of one of the biggest beneficiaries of reduced launch prices is evidence for, not against, the paradox. Without the cost structure enabled by their launch tech, Starlink is a massive money loser, like every other satellite internet company before it.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
> Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their pricing per kg has fallen by about half since then. The Falcon 9 price per launch was increased from $62M to $67M in 2022. As far as I'm aware, that is the only time the Falcon 9 price ever changed.
- didgeoridoo 2y ago
  I’m seeing sources all over the place on this, so you could indeed be right. What are your thoughts on the source & quote below? > Since SpaceX began flying the Falcon 9 rocket in 2009, the cost of launch per pound has decreased from $10,000 per kilogram to roughly $2,500. Starship promises to lower the cost of launch even further. Today, the per kilogram cost of a Falcon 9 launch is $1520. Starship’s larger size would allow it to drop that down by 40% to $970 https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2023/04/20/t-minus-6-seconds-starship-and-humanitys-next-major-step-into-space/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2023/04/20/t-min...
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Cost of launch has likely indeed dropped dramatically. But cost != price. Price has stayed roughly constant and SpaceX's profit margin has dramatically increased.
numpad0 2y ago
Falcon 9($69.75m) is priced about the same as Mitsubishi H-IIA(within 20% of $100m) anyway. Performance difference is within ballparks and Mitsubishi is confident that they're going to get successor H3 cost half as much, which is so far just an ambitious goal but they're not full of liars either. H3 is also 100% expendable with zero accommodation for reuse or extreme cadence operations. So it's either SpaceX had long established reuse and charging egregious margins to NASA, or Japanese aerospace labor is practically free, or only first stage recovery technology was realized and cost savings is still an open question. Doesn't the situation look like a mix of all three, I mean, how can it be the case that SpaceX had cut cost by like 80% and US GAO is totally cool with that?

bryanlarsen 2y ago

> Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their pricing per kg has fallen by about half since then. The Falcon 9 price per launch was increased from $62M to $67M in 2022. As far as I'm aware, that is the only time the Falcon 9 price ever changed.

didgeoridoo 2y ago
I’m seeing sources all over the place on this, so you could indeed be right. What are your thoughts on the source & quote below? > Since SpaceX began flying the Falcon 9 rocket in 2009, the cost of launch per pound has decreased from $10,000 per kilogram to roughly $2,500. Starship promises to lower the cost of launch even further. Today, the per kilogram cost of a Falcon 9 launch is $1520. Starship’s larger size would allow it to drop that down by 40% to $970 https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2023/04/20/t-minus-6-seconds-starship-and-humanitys-next-major-step-into-space/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2023/04/20/t-min...
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Cost of launch has likely indeed dropped dramatically. But cost != price. Price has stayed roughly constant and SpaceX's profit margin has dramatically increased.

numpad0 2y ago

Falcon 9($69.75m) is priced about the same as Mitsubishi H-IIA(within 20% of $100m) anyway. Performance difference is within ballparks and Mitsubishi is confident that they're going to get successor H3 cost half as much, which is so far just an ambitious goal but they're not full of liars either. H3 is also 100% expendable with zero accommodation for reuse or extreme cadence operations. So it's either SpaceX had long established reuse and charging egregious margins to NASA, or Japanese aerospace labor is practically free, or only first stage recovery technology was realized and cost savings is still an open question. Doesn't the situation look like a mix of all three, I mean, how can it be the case that SpaceX had cut cost by like 80% and US GAO is totally cool with that?