4 ms·

We have no idea what starship has cost. It's a private company.

0xffff2 7mo ago
I don't think "no idea" is fair. We don't have exact numbers, but there are various statements out there that give clues. Even the highest estimates I can put together put Starship far cheaper than SLS.
- tsimionescu 7mo ago
  You have to consider that Starship has not reached anywhere near the operational goals for Artemis, and there is no realistic time line for when it might. So we really do have no idea how much it might cost by the time it reaches the milestone SLS has already cleared (successful flight in lunar orbit, with a full payload that it successfully deploys).
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    You also have to consider that SpaceX has the fastest, most reliable, most cost efficient launch service in operation ever, and are using the same methodology to develop the most advanced launch system ever attempted.
    - biaachmonkie 7mo ago
      We also have to consider the other major Musk lead company Telsa had the best selling car in the world and string of successful cars leading up to that before completely shitting the bed on the Cyber Truck. I want Starship to be a success and reduce the cost to orbit and beyond, but past success does not in any way guarantee future success.
      - Schiendelman 7mo ago
        Life has no guarantees. Past success is the best predictor of future success regardless.
      - __patchbit__ 7mo ago
        You must compare the AI chip in the Tesla vehicle to the chip in F-35 "Fat Amy" on value for money thermal design.
nine_k 7mo ago
Even if a Starship needs to be scrapped after landing, the Super Heavy booster works, returns nominally to the launch site, and can be reused. This alone should make the whole thing cheaper than SLS.
- tsimionescu 7mo ago
  Only if the SuperHeavy booster can achieve the same performance as the SLS (payload to orbit), with similar levels of operational complexity. The SLS has already proven it can fly to lunar orbit and back on one single launch. In contrast, even if everything goes according to plan, Starship requires at least a dozen re-fueling flights while it hangs in orbit around the Earth to be able to then fly to the Moon. Will one Starship launch, when it eventually works, be cheaper than SLS? Very likely. Will 12+ Starship launches + the time in orbit be cheaper than a single SLS launch? Much, much less likely.
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    Actually, we already know that with booster reuse disposing of 12 tanker starships will cost less than an SLS launch and actually be able to get to the moon, which SLS with Orion can’t actually do.
    - tsimionescu 7mo ago
      We don't, because Starship has not had even one successful flight with any appreciable payload. It's absolutely possible that the booster will need to be completely redesigned, and become much more expensive, in order to achieve the mission goals. It's also worth noting that a captured booster has only once been successfully flown again - and certainly not in the kind of tight time line that the in-orbit refueling operation requires (first flight was March 6, second flight was October 13 - and no more flights are planned anyway). There is currently little proof that boosters can be "rapidly and fully reused" as needed to match any of the cost promises.
      - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
panick21 7mo ago
True but we know for a fact that it doesn't consume 4-5 billion $ a year for the last 15 years like SLS/Orion because SpaceX couldn't afford that. If you actually do some basic math and look at SpaceX revenue and so on, you can make some pretty decent guesses. And SpaceX is analyzed in detail by lots of people.

I don't think "no idea" is fair. We don't have exact numbers, but there are various statements out there that give clues. Even the highest estimates I can put together put Starship far cheaper than SLS.

tsimionescu 7mo ago
You have to consider that Starship has not reached anywhere near the operational goals for Artemis, and there is no realistic time line for when it might. So we really do have no idea how much it might cost by the time it reaches the milestone SLS has already cleared (successful flight in lunar orbit, with a full payload that it successfully deploys).
- NetMageSCW 7mo ago
  You also have to consider that SpaceX has the fastest, most reliable, most cost efficient launch service in operation ever, and are using the same methodology to develop the most advanced launch system ever attempted.
  - biaachmonkie 7mo ago
    We also have to consider the other major Musk lead company Telsa had the best selling car in the world and string of successful cars leading up to that before completely shitting the bed on the Cyber Truck. I want Starship to be a success and reduce the cost to orbit and beyond, but past success does not in any way guarantee future success.
    - Schiendelman 7mo ago
      Life has no guarantees. Past success is the best predictor of future success regardless.
    - __patchbit__ 7mo ago
      You must compare the AI chip in the Tesla vehicle to the chip in F-35 "Fat Amy" on value for money thermal design.

nine_k 7mo ago

Even if a Starship needs to be scrapped after landing, the Super Heavy booster works, returns nominally to the launch site, and can be reused. This alone should make the whole thing cheaper than SLS.

tsimionescu 7mo ago
Only if the SuperHeavy booster can achieve the same performance as the SLS (payload to orbit), with similar levels of operational complexity. The SLS has already proven it can fly to lunar orbit and back on one single launch. In contrast, even if everything goes according to plan, Starship requires at least a dozen re-fueling flights while it hangs in orbit around the Earth to be able to then fly to the Moon. Will one Starship launch, when it eventually works, be cheaper than SLS? Very likely. Will 12+ Starship launches + the time in orbit be cheaper than a single SLS launch? Much, much less likely.
- NetMageSCW 7mo ago
  Actually, we already know that with booster reuse disposing of 12 tanker starships will cost less than an SLS launch and actually be able to get to the moon, which SLS with Orion can’t actually do.
  - tsimionescu 7mo ago
    We don't, because Starship has not had even one successful flight with any appreciable payload. It's absolutely possible that the booster will need to be completely redesigned, and become much more expensive, in order to achieve the mission goals. It's also worth noting that a captured booster has only once been successfully flown again - and certainly not in the kind of tight time line that the in-orbit refueling operation requires (first flight was March 6, second flight was October 13 - and no more flights are planned anyway). There is currently little proof that boosters can be "rapidly and fully reused" as needed to match any of the cost promises.
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago

panick21 7mo ago

True but we know for a fact that it doesn't consume 4-5 billion $ a year for the last 15 years like SLS/Orion because SpaceX couldn't afford that. If you actually do some basic math and look at SpaceX revenue and so on, you can make some pretty decent guesses. And SpaceX is analyzed in detail by lots of people.