3 ms·

Starship's maximum payload doesn't matter - it's cost per launch is all that matters, and with full reuse it will be cheaper to launch a medium payload on Stars

Starship's maximum payload doesn't matter - it's cost per launch is all that matters, and with full reuse it will be cheaper to launch a medium payload on Starship than F9. SpaceX has already stated some of their launch contracts include the option to switch the launch vehicle to Starship from F9.

jmyeet 11mo ago
It really does matter because SpaceX has to recover the cost of developing the program. I have no idea what all these test launches cost (where they lose the vehicle) but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the $300-500M range. Plus development time for all the components, particularly the engines. Starship is complex. The Raptor engines are complex. There are valid reasons to use Methane instead of Kerosene (ie to avoid coking and the ccost to reuse) but now you need two chilled propellants with everything that entails. You need to do a lot of launches to become human-rated (like Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon is now). In-orbit refueling is going to take a lot of launches to perfect and prove and it's going to have fairly limited applications to boot. Plus the entire program is a massive opportunity cost. SpaceX is in their Boeing 747 era now. The 747 was such a massive profit center for Boeing for decades, particularly when the program was paid for so it didn't need to be recovered on each plane delivered. Ultimately that ends. Engines are so reliable that they don't make 4 engine commercial planes anymore. I read it's likely that the engine will never have to be replaced for the entire life of the plane, which is a vastly different situation to 50-60 years ago when the 747 was first developed. The Falcon 9 is currently the most successful launch system ever made and it is a cash cow. But if SpaceX spends a decade or more delivering Starship and recovering the program cost, that's a long time for somebody else to come along with an even cheaper platform in the same class as Falcon 9.

jmyeet 11mo ago

It really does matter because SpaceX has to recover the cost of developing the program. I have no idea what all these test launches cost (where they lose the vehicle) but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the $300-500M range. Plus development time for all the components, particularly the engines. Starship is complex. The Raptor engines are complex. There are valid reasons to use Methane instead of Kerosene (ie to avoid coking and the ccost to reuse) but now you need two chilled propellants with everything that entails. You need to do a lot of launches to become human-rated (like Falcon 9 / Crew Dragon is now). In-orbit refueling is going to take a lot of launches to perfect and prove and it's going to have fairly limited applications to boot. Plus the entire program is a massive opportunity cost. SpaceX is in their Boeing 747 era now. The 747 was such a massive profit center for Boeing for decades, particularly when the program was paid for so it didn't need to be recovered on each plane delivered. Ultimately that ends. Engines are so reliable that they don't make 4 engine commercial planes anymore. I read it's likely that the engine will never have to be replaced for the entire life of the plane, which is a vastly different situation to 50-60 years ago when the 747 was first developed. The Falcon 9 is currently the most successful launch system ever made and it is a cash cow. But if SpaceX spends a decade or more delivering Starship and recovering the program cost, that's a long time for somebody else to come along with an even cheaper platform in the same class as Falcon 9.