3 ms·

18 launches for $1.6B sounds like a terrible deal for SpaceX. Will they even profit?

voxic11 3mo ago
The standard catalog price for a dedicated falcon 9 launch is $74 million. So this is actually up-charging the government a bit (I assume there is some custom work or extra cost for arranging for the appropriate security/secrecy).
vel0city 3mo ago
1,600M / 18 means $88.8M per launch. Supposedly they've been selling launches for ~$74M per launch. https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/ https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/ If its profitable at $74M then I'd imagine its more profitable at $88.8M. There could be some extra costs for dealing with government customers, but I imagine a lot of those $74M launches were also government customers. Lots of estimates of their cost per launch is somewhere <$20M.
inemesitaffia 3mo ago
SpaceX claims they launch for $20 million and thier public minimum price is lower than the charge here
- Zigurd 3mo ago
  Now that they are publicly traded, there may be less scope for shenanigans in those numbers. If they really had such great margins on falcon 9, an improved, cost reduced falcon rocket would make a lot of sense. Instead they're betting at all on a rocket that has a daunting list of unmet project milestones before it does what it claims it will do. That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs.
  - panick21_ 3mo ago
    Yeah so you just don't actually understand the economics. The thing is, unless you massively increase the volume of Falcon 9, you are not going to get it that much cheaper. Its already incredibly cheap given that its made out of fancy aerospace material that needs to be shaped and welded with complex processes. If they invested a lot, could they get it a little cheaper? Sure maybe a few % ever year. They have been redesigning the Falcon 9 over and over again to optimize its manufacture and re-usability. They are mass producing the second stage about faster and cheaper then any other rocket structure of that complexity and size. What you suggest they should do they have already done, multiple times. But you run into limits. You could replace the Merlin engine with an engine of the same size that uses kerolox but is staged. Not much more you can do on the Merlin itself, except very marginal improvements. But if you do that you need to make the rocket longer, but Falcon is already on the upper limit of rocket of that diameter. So you need to increase the width. So you are already doing a new staged engine, and now your doing a very different structure already. Now you also need to change the shape of your downcomer, you have different thermodynamics of reentry, you redesign the engine bay and its heat protection. Basically you are building a new rocket at that point and the payoff for such a huge effort, is marginal at best. Their design has effectively reached a local maximum. Marginal improvements are possible and they are doing that but its not going to change fundamentally and its not going to get to their goal. Any new rocket they develop, must be more then a marginal improvement. Airbus and Boeing don't develop new planes unless the efficiency (therefore cost) improves by 20-30%. To actually reach the next level of profit opportunity you need to achieve full re-usability. That the next major step that can unlock much cheaper price to orbit. That's where your capital investment can have actual real payoff. Because it makes much larger constellation possible. > That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs. Yeah and how is that streamlined operation possible you think? Maybe it has to do that they have a reusable fleet of boosters that have been highly optimized to be able to land and reused quickly. Maybe it has to do with them optimizing the shit out of their launch infrastructure, like pioneering automatic flight termination and 100s of other things. That is the technology. And there is no shell game going on, they make a lot of profit from Falcon 9 but reinvest everything in Starship, thus their rocket division overall is losing money.
panick21_ 3mo ago
These are their normal prices, its actually reasonable cheap for military launch. And they have a fantastic margin on Falcon 9, at least 50% likely more.
thinkcontext 3mo ago
Even more significant is the timing, it's 18 launches by the end of 2027. Even before New Glenn and Vulcan broke they couldn't have scheduled a single launch before the end of 2027. Their manifests were full because they were years late. SpaceX could easily charge more for timeliness. Its way more important than price per kg for a military customer.

The standard catalog price for a dedicated falcon 9 launch is $74 million. So this is actually up-charging the government a bit (I assume there is some custom work or extra cost for arranging for the appropriate security/secrecy).

vel0city 3mo ago

1,600M / 18 means $88.8M per launch. Supposedly they've been selling launches for ~$74M per launch. https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/ https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/ If its profitable at $74M then I'd imagine its more profitable at $88.8M. There could be some extra costs for dealing with government customers, but I imagine a lot of those $74M launches were also government customers. Lots of estimates of their cost per launch is somewhere <$20M.

inemesitaffia 3mo ago

SpaceX claims they launch for $20 million and thier public minimum price is lower than the charge here

Zigurd 3mo ago
Now that they are publicly traded, there may be less scope for shenanigans in those numbers. If they really had such great margins on falcon 9, an improved, cost reduced falcon rocket would make a lot of sense. Instead they're betting at all on a rocket that has a daunting list of unmet project milestones before it does what it claims it will do. That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs.
- panick21_ 3mo ago
  Yeah so you just don't actually understand the economics. The thing is, unless you massively increase the volume of Falcon 9, you are not going to get it that much cheaper. Its already incredibly cheap given that its made out of fancy aerospace material that needs to be shaped and welded with complex processes. If they invested a lot, could they get it a little cheaper? Sure maybe a few % ever year. They have been redesigning the Falcon 9 over and over again to optimize its manufacture and re-usability. They are mass producing the second stage about faster and cheaper then any other rocket structure of that complexity and size. What you suggest they should do they have already done, multiple times. But you run into limits. You could replace the Merlin engine with an engine of the same size that uses kerolox but is staged. Not much more you can do on the Merlin itself, except very marginal improvements. But if you do that you need to make the rocket longer, but Falcon is already on the upper limit of rocket of that diameter. So you need to increase the width. So you are already doing a new staged engine, and now your doing a very different structure already. Now you also need to change the shape of your downcomer, you have different thermodynamics of reentry, you redesign the engine bay and its heat protection. Basically you are building a new rocket at that point and the payoff for such a huge effort, is marginal at best. Their design has effectively reached a local maximum. Marginal improvements are possible and they are doing that but its not going to change fundamentally and its not going to get to their goal. Any new rocket they develop, must be more then a marginal improvement. Airbus and Boeing don't develop new planes unless the efficiency (therefore cost) improves by 20-30%. To actually reach the next level of profit opportunity you need to achieve full re-usability. That the next major step that can unlock much cheaper price to orbit. That's where your capital investment can have actual real payoff. Because it makes much larger constellation possible. > That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs. Yeah and how is that streamlined operation possible you think? Maybe it has to do that they have a reusable fleet of boosters that have been highly optimized to be able to land and reused quickly. Maybe it has to do with them optimizing the shit out of their launch infrastructure, like pioneering automatic flight termination and 100s of other things. That is the technology. And there is no shell game going on, they make a lot of profit from Falcon 9 but reinvest everything in Starship, thus their rocket division overall is losing money.

panick21_ 3mo ago

These are their normal prices, its actually reasonable cheap for military launch. And they have a fantastic margin on Falcon 9, at least 50% likely more.

thinkcontext 3mo ago

Even more significant is the timing, it's 18 launches by the end of 2027. Even before New Glenn and Vulcan broke they couldn't have scheduled a single launch before the end of 2027. Their manifests were full because they were years late. SpaceX could easily charge more for timeliness. Its way more important than price per kg for a military customer.