4 ms·

Is that 150t of payload or total? What’s the cost in fuel alone (let’s ignore maintenance and operations costs for now)? I’m trying to get a feel for the relati

Is that 150t of payload or total? What’s the cost in fuel alone (let’s ignore maintenance and operations costs for now)? I’m trying to get a feel for the relative scale compared to today’s commercial flight.

treespace8 2y ago
It was just a quick google. 150t reusable. No idea about the other costs.
dotnet00 2y ago
They previously threw around a number of around $1M per flight, as mostly fuel costs. Also, while 150t is the target payload capacity, the current test vehicles are closer to 50t in payload capacity, there are revisions in the pipeline based on data from these test flights which will bring it up to 150t.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  To put this in perspective: at 150t/launch, if a launch is $1M, then for the cost of an SLS launch (at least $2B) Starship could launch 300,000 tons, about the mass of three Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers.
  - Waterluvian 2y ago
    We could use a few of those in orbit.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      America funding the literal eye of Sauron 2.0
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  None of the vehicles have demonstrated any payload capacity yet. 50 tons is the on-paper capacity only, and seems quite high given how little fuel is left when the bring an empty starship to orbital altitude. I assume that as the engines and launch procedures get more efficient, they will start being able to bring stuff to orbit (and quite a bit of stuff, too).
  - starspangled 2y ago
    They have, they brought up 10 tonnes on the test before last to do a prop transfer test for NASA.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Hint: With a Musk company, if it's not on video, it didn't happen.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        That's a weak rebuttal. It's not disputed except by the lunatic fringe - starship has carried a payload (although not quite to orbit, very close to). Whatever that means is what it means, the ship was out of control and I don't know whether or not the mission requiring that payload was successful, but the fact is that it did carry the payload.
  - cjbillington 2y ago
    They've actually been having to dump propellant in order to more accurately test what a Starship in orbit would be like, given they're not flying with a payload that would consume that propellant on ascent, but that they still want to launch with a full tank. The dumping of this excess propellant actually caused an explosion and loss of vehicle on the second test flight.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      That's what they said about the second test flight (and the third), but the webcast recordings looked a lot more like fuel leaks to me, and that is in line with Starship and early Falcon's past issues. I'm going to press X to doubt that the dumping narrative is the truth, since a nice face-saving white lie is in every corporation's handbook.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Methane is about 900-1500$ / ton. About 1000 tons is used for the launch in addition to 3600 tons of lox. That should be a bit cheaper than methane per ton. Ballpark, the propellant might cost around 2M$. A modern airliner on a long flight might burn around 80 tons of kerosene. It's slightly cheaper than methane. Call it 75-80K$.
- bombcar 2y ago
  That's $7 of fuel per pound of payload, that is not bad at all.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Indeed. You sometime see an argument that launch to space is expensive because of the propellant and therefore energy required. And as you note this argument is utterly wrong.
    - throwaway4aday 2y ago
      not sure how anyone can miss the "throwing away the airplane" part as being the cost driver.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        It's the same cognitive error as thinking nuclear energy must be cheap because the fuel is cheap.
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      >And as you note this argument is utterly wrong. Am I mistaken, or are there distance/payload combinations for which Starship is cheaper per pound on a point-to-point basis than air transport, even setting aside 30 minutes versus 12 hours? Isn't that the non-intuitive outcome of ballistic trajectories?
      - adastra22 2y ago

treespace8 2y ago

It was just a quick google. 150t reusable. No idea about the other costs.

dotnet00 2y ago

They previously threw around a number of around $1M per flight, as mostly fuel costs. Also, while 150t is the target payload capacity, the current test vehicles are closer to 50t in payload capacity, there are revisions in the pipeline based on data from these test flights which will bring it up to 150t.

pfdietz 2y ago
To put this in perspective: at 150t/launch, if a launch is $1M, then for the cost of an SLS launch (at least $2B) Starship could launch 300,000 tons, about the mass of three Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  We could use a few of those in orbit.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    America funding the literal eye of Sauron 2.0
pclmulqdq 2y ago
None of the vehicles have demonstrated any payload capacity yet. 50 tons is the on-paper capacity only, and seems quite high given how little fuel is left when the bring an empty starship to orbital altitude. I assume that as the engines and launch procedures get more efficient, they will start being able to bring stuff to orbit (and quite a bit of stuff, too).
- starspangled 2y ago
  They have, they brought up 10 tonnes on the test before last to do a prop transfer test for NASA.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Hint: With a Musk company, if it's not on video, it didn't happen.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      That's a weak rebuttal. It's not disputed except by the lunatic fringe - starship has carried a payload (although not quite to orbit, very close to). Whatever that means is what it means, the ship was out of control and I don't know whether or not the mission requiring that payload was successful, but the fact is that it did carry the payload.
- cjbillington 2y ago
  They've actually been having to dump propellant in order to more accurately test what a Starship in orbit would be like, given they're not flying with a payload that would consume that propellant on ascent, but that they still want to launch with a full tank. The dumping of this excess propellant actually caused an explosion and loss of vehicle on the second test flight.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    That's what they said about the second test flight (and the third), but the webcast recordings looked a lot more like fuel leaks to me, and that is in line with Starship and early Falcon's past issues. I'm going to press X to doubt that the dumping narrative is the truth, since a nice face-saving white lie is in every corporation's handbook.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Methane is about 900-1500$ / ton. About 1000 tons is used for the launch in addition to 3600 tons of lox. That should be a bit cheaper than methane per ton. Ballpark, the propellant might cost around 2M$. A modern airliner on a long flight might burn around 80 tons of kerosene. It's slightly cheaper than methane. Call it 75-80K$.

bombcar 2y ago
That's $7 of fuel per pound of payload, that is not bad at all.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Indeed. You sometime see an argument that launch to space is expensive because of the propellant and therefore energy required. And as you note this argument is utterly wrong.
  - throwaway4aday 2y ago
    not sure how anyone can miss the "throwing away the airplane" part as being the cost driver.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      It's the same cognitive error as thinking nuclear energy must be cheap because the fuel is cheap.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    >And as you note this argument is utterly wrong. Am I mistaken, or are there distance/payload combinations for which Starship is cheaper per pound on a point-to-point basis than air transport, even setting aside 30 minutes versus 12 hours? Isn't that the non-intuitive outcome of ballistic trajectories?
    - adastra22 2y ago