Rocket Lab targets $50 million launch price for Neutron rocket to challenge SpaceX’s Falcon 9
cnbc.comSubmitted by cnbc_official t3_120ws6p in space
Comments
binary_spaniard t1_jdk1uek wrote
> If Neutron is priced at $50M for a 15 tonne LEO payload, that's $3.3/kg.
It is $50M for the 13 tonne configuration.
> SpaceX has largely recouped their development costs so they can afford to compete with Rocketlab on price.
SpaceX has invested at least 10 billions in Starship, including Raptor, getting funding is getting harder and it is likely that its commercial operations don't start this year.
SpaceX is not lowering prices until they don't have other option.
Testimones t1_jdljoiw wrote
Am I completely wrong when I calculate 15000*$3.3 and get $49500? Is $3.3 meant to mean $3300?
livinginspace t1_jdmic0p wrote
Yes, you're right. $3.3/kg would mean you can get a ticket to space for $250
Testimones t1_jdmmfsv wrote
You are assuming quite a lot about my (lack) of weight there mate 🥲
Reddit-runner t1_jdm6f10 wrote
>SpaceX has invested at least 10 billions in Starship, including Raptor,
This was about Falcon9, tho.
And combined with the ISS contracts I would be VERY surprised if SpaceX hasn't recouped their development cost yet.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdvi5i1 wrote
>SpaceX is not lowering prices until they don't have other option.
We won't see SpaceX lower Starship prices until they are pushing for a very high flight cadence and are ready to replace Falcon 9. At that point, I would expect Starship to drop to $50M with F9 raising to $60M minimum and possibly much more. Falcon Heavy is going to be pushed back immediately after Starship starts flying as well.
binary_spaniard t1_jdw445o wrote
Falcon Heavy does direct GEO insertions that Starship won't do until orbital refueling is available and even then, it will be more expensive than most people expect.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdw9wo7 wrote
Starship is likely to do something different with GEO and further missions. Payload to LEO is just so huge and cheap compared to anything else that it will likely do a kickstage or just larger satellite thrusters. Falcon Heavy can only send 26.7t to GTO fully expended and doesn't have the volume to handle too large of a payload. Starship is 100t and likely more to LEO while fully reused with a massive volume as well. Elon himself doesn't care about Falcon Heavy, so I expect SpaceX to find ways to push everything away from FH as soon as possible.
Also keep in mind that once Starship is able to fly and be recovered reliably, it becomes more beneficial for SpaceX to fly Starship more often. A fully reusable Starship should be nearly 1/5th to 1/10th the cost to fly as a Falcon 9, and well past 1/10th to cost of Falcon Heavy.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdxdb7k wrote
Btw, I was under the impression that Starship couldn't do GTO missions while being reused and would need a refueling mission or kick stage. Apparently that is not the case. According to SpaceX's Starship User Guide, they can put 21t into GTO while still recovering the booster and upper stage at the launch site.
By comparison, Falcon Heavy can only put 26.7t into GTO while being fully expended. And the heaviest payload to GTO so far (by SpaceX) is only 7t, according to SpaceXStats webpage. And it appears that the heaviest payload ever by SpaceX is only 17.4t back in January, according to SpaceFlightNow.
MemorianX t1_jdlcoyn wrote
Maybe customer will also favor falcon 9 due it's track record what at least until neutron ha proven it's reliability. What is a few million more in launch cost Vs the time and build price of your payload
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdlxyqq wrote
Rocket Lab's website says Neutron will do 13 tons to LEO, not 15.
DBDude t1_jdkl6kn wrote
Estimated $15 million for the upper stage, the most expensive part of the launch.
SpaceInMyBrain t1_jdn8gav wrote
>The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins.
It's probably more accurate to say the profit is reinvested into Starlink launches and all the other Starlink costs. And of course into Starship. By the time Neutron is ready Starlink will be creating its own profits and SpaceX could drop the F9 price to below $50M. Of course if Starship works then F9 won't be flying at all by then, except for Dragon and any NSSL-2 launches the DoD doesn't want to switch over to Starship yet.
moleware t1_jdmftzh wrote
If I've only got 12 tonnes to launch, sounds like it's an easy answer.
pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_jdmo1fs wrote
Until someone lower their prices, which was my point
[deleted] t1_jdnabag wrote
[removed]
therealdjred t1_jdp8fi5 wrote
How on earth do posts with math wrong by a factor of 1000 get upvotes???
pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_jds0odn wrote
You are totally right and im a complete idiot, I meant to write $3.3k/kg
Xaxxon t1_jdnb3sh wrote
> If Neutron is priced at $50M
That is obviously correct but it's a paper rocket goal price. Too many people assuming it's a real price of a real rocket that exactly hits ever goal.
Wake me up when you can sign a contract locking in that price.
Supermeme1001 t1_jdpx5ft wrote
much worse paper rockets already have hundreds of millions to billions in "contracts"
FTR_1077 t1_jdmc9id wrote
>The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins.
We don't know that, SpaceX financials are not public. Given the fact that SpaceX has consistently run rounds of funding, costs may have increased with reusability.
BrangdonJ t1_jdmeimb wrote
If reusability didn't save them money I doubt they'd do it. And they've said it's much cheaper to refurbish than to build new. Those rounds were to raise funds for Starship and/or Starlink development. Both of those have been money-sinks.
FTR_1077 t1_jdmg3xx wrote
>Those rounds were to raise funds for Starship and/or Starlink
We don't know that.. we can speculate though. Isn't it fun?
SpaceInMyBrain t1_jdn9k2r wrote
>we can speculate though.
We can speculate - but also have to base the speculations on which is more likely. With its vertical integration and the simplified design of F9, SpaceX could build expendable F9s for cheaper than ULA or other competitors - in all likelihood. But they don't so in all likelihood the reuse approach is working for them, giving them even larger profits than being expendable.
FTR_1077 t1_jdpgee7 wrote
>giving them even larger profits
SpaceX is not profitable. You can't have a larger something that you don't have.
Xaxxon t1_jdnaeyx wrote
it's not when people abuse it
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdms3rt wrote
We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9. Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m with everything counted. All of these were prior to the massive launch cadence and reuse they started hitting in 2021. Cost are very likely down to $15m-$20m per F9 launch and easily under $25m now.
As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for. The vast majority of the funding SpaceX has received came after Starship and Starlink development began. And that is what it is for. Not Falcon 9 which basically had to freeze it's development in 2019 for final crew rating. And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches and they would ramp up production of new boosters as mass production also reduces cost.
FTR_1077 t1_jdpg6dm wrote
>We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9.
We don't, unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.
>Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m
And there's no way to confirm that, it's fine if you decide to trust them, but History shows Elon's companies are not know for being truthful.
>As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for.
Again, we don't.. unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.
>And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches
Why would they do that? The only way SpaceX is getting money is from investors is because they think SpaceX is revolutionizing the industry.. without the reusability gimmick, SpaceX is just another rocket company.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdrqpkl wrote
You are making up crap in your head. Look, 3 execs confirmed at multiple different times in multiple different interviews the cost. People have also gone through to verify numbers as best as possible. The Execs have no reason to lie. And reuse is not some gimmick. It's actually making a meaningful difference. Not just price, but cadence.
And yes, we do know the funding reasons. They specifically made a big deal about both Starlink and Starship. Plus we can see with our own eyes the huge production being done. Factories ain't cheap, nor is the huge amount of construction for Starship and the massive number of satellites for Starlink.
And of course common sense clearly shows that reuse is making a huge financial difference. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have reduced the cost of reusable launches, they wouldn't push customers towards reused rockets, and they wouldn't fly Starlink missions entirely on reused boosters. You are effectively accusing SpaceX of being a pyramid scheme when it clearly isn't.
binary_spaniard t1_jdmf38d wrote
SpaceX has invested at least 10 billions in Starship related expenses, without having any revenue there. That's way more than any Falcon estimated profit.
Plus all those Starlink satellites are not cheap.
FTR_1077 t1_jdmgkh9 wrote
Exactly, SpaceX is operating under the start-up model "grow without caring about profits". That's makes it very possible they are just dumping F9, France already accused them of doing so.
** BTW, SpaceX was founded 20 years ago, it should be profitable by now, behaving like a start-up after so long is just a bad sign.
morosis1982 t1_jdmqwx4 wrote
I'd agree with you on that last point if they had left it at refurbishable F9 and just taking profits from flights. But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO, both of which have yet to profit, in the true startup fashion.
It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS. If they'd just left it at the online store they'd have been in profit a long time ago.
FTR_1077 t1_jdpfbwu wrote
>But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO,
Well, the former one changes the business model of the company, from orbital launches to telecommunications. It's a bad sign for a start-up to pivot that late in the game.
And on the later, although it sounds like a natural progression of the launch services, the failure of FH is a bad sign for starship.. SpaceX may end up never making money.
>It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS.
Sure, but SpaceX is still far away.. let's say it takes another 10 to make starship as smooth as F9. Are the investors willing to wait 30 years? 40 years? At some point money is going to run out.
morosis1982 t1_jdpmax8 wrote
I wasn't aware FH had failed, mind expanding on that? I was under the impression it's just that most launches don't require that capability given how ubiquitous F9 has become.
Starlink is a bit of a left field idea but from the sounds of it was designed as a way to provide cashflow long term to develop Starship. Not all that crazy given they owned the launch vehicles and used it to test the reusability of them long term.
I somewhat agree with Starship, it's hard to see that many people with requirements that fit it's capability, but that's also possibly just because those capabilities just a few years ago were hundreds of millions per launch. It's likely the lower launch costs will see a lot more development in the space just as we saw with F9.
FTR_1077 t1_jdqwef9 wrote
>I wasn't aware FH had failed,
FH has flown about once a year, a rocket more capable than F9. The market just doesn't exists.. A product left on the shelves is a failed product.
Starship is even more powerful, the only actual client is Artemis, and that will fly once every few years (if we are Lucky). And on top of that SpaceX is not making money out of HLS, part of the reason why they got the contract was because SpaceX is putting like half of the money.
>Starlink is a bit of a left field idea but from the sounds of it was designed as a way to provide cash flow long term to develop Starship. Satellite internet already exists, is a mature market.. even if SpaceX completely dominated the market, there's not enough money there to fund starship development. That's why SpaceX keeps running rounds of investment.
SpaceX is a start-up, a 20 year old start-up that doesn't make money.
[deleted] t1_jdnad8s wrote
[removed]
New_Poet_338 t1_jdjbj8w wrote
They are targeting their next generation rocket at SpaceXs last generation rocket. That will be a tough place to be but there is probably a market there.
iceagegoatee t1_jdk0qrk wrote
There's a big market on the government side.
Defense contracts need multiple suppliers for redundancy and NASA is also very far along in its move towards contracting multiple suppliers for all launches (outside of SLS size payloads).
RL has an advantage of already having relationships with both and a long enough launch history that they can bank on reliability.
And while I want SpaceX to succeed I wouldn't call Falcon 9 last generation until Starship successfully delivers a payload to orbit.
Reddit-runner t1_jdm6tq5 wrote
>I want SpaceX to succeed I wouldn't call Falcon 9 last generation until
It's their current operational rocket. It's not their new or next rocket.
Basically RocketLab has to hope that they get Neutron up and running well before Starship is eating up even the small sat market.
Supermeme1001 t1_jdpxgv6 wrote
people have been saying for a while but especially in the past year that starship is going to change the world, I get it. but do we really think the model for people launching under 10t payloads is the starships payload being a bunch of different contracts with tugs?
Reddit-runner t1_jdpy5wd wrote
>but do we really think the model for people launching under 10t payloads is the starships payload being a bunch of different contracts with tugs?
Imagine yourself being a customer. Do you really care about the maximum payload mass of a rocket as long as it can carry your payload to your desired orbit and is the cheapest option?
People often seem to be caught up with the giant payload mass of Starship and extrapolate current practice into the future. All while they forget that customers pay per launch, not per kg.
The propellant load for a full Starship launch costs well below $2M. This makes clear why SpaceX is so certain that they can hit their desired launch cost.
Supermeme1001 t1_jdpybfl wrote
I dont disagree, does spacex have a tug design ready?
Reddit-runner t1_jdpyizb wrote
Maybe some intern has something on a flash drive. But I have not seen any official stuff yet.
However with the flexible architecture of Starship any space tug will be far down the line.
vibingjusthardenough t1_jdkfk7u wrote
I’m not too well-versed on the specifics of RL’s business and am rusty on US spaceflight conventions but are they a viable option for USSF or NASA since they’re based in NZ?
TheBroadHorizon t1_jdkqg7d wrote
They were founded in NZ and have their primary launch site there but the company relocated their headquarters to California several years ago. They've launched multiple payloads for both NASA and the US military.
R1150gsguy t1_jdm6j1f wrote
They also just started launching from wallops in Va.
I was lucky enough to see the inaugural liftoff in person.
Very cool
Braqsus t1_jdmgzi9 wrote
They are part owned by a couple big US aerospace companies
Bewaretheicespiders t1_jdjeias wrote
There is a market in being number 2. By being a telecom, SpaceX has become a competition of a lot of its clients. Which would like to launch with someone else if there was a decent option. Ive met with many clients in the software world that didnt want to have their stuff running on AWS because they compete with Amazon on the retail space.
BrangdonJ t1_jdmgd8c wrote
True, but there will be a lot of competition for the number 2 slot. ULA, Rocketlab, Relativity Space, Blue Origin.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_jdmj3fv wrote
Maybe. Blue hasnt made it to orbit in what, 23 years? ULA's only interested in government launches. Relativity is more interested in 3D printing than spaceflight, its a big question mark wether they'll be competitive if and when they get to orbit.
jivatman t1_jdmj5xa wrote
Honestly I think the winner is going to be who can actually make the most rockets. Rather than who is the cheapest, achieves reusability or has the best technical metric. As Elon says, Manufacturing is harder than Engineering.
rocketsocks t1_jdljti4 wrote
> They are targeting their next generation rocket at SpaceXs last generation rocket.
I wouldn't say that exactly. Neutron is fully LOX/methane, and it includes several innovations not seen in the Falcon 9 which potentially will be advantageous. That said, it is not the quantum leap that Starship represents, and SpaceX is still far ahead of anyone else in several areas (Raptor engine development perhaps, for example). However, in that regard, it is very likely that Neutron will be launching commercial payloads before Starship does.
From a practical standpoint Neutron or something very like Neutron is still an absolutely solid choice for Rocket Lab as their next move beyond Electron. It's achievable enough to reach the market soon. It's capable enough to be cost competitive even with the best in class, and it has a capability profile which should enable it to be profitable even given a lot of potential variability in the launch market. It's main target may be in servicing LEO constellations, but it'll have the capability to launch a wide variety of more conventional satellites. Even with the SpaceX "steamroller" in full effect there is still unmet need in the launch business. It's very likely that if Neutron work they won't have any problem finding customers for it.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdly8w0 wrote
What innovations does Neutron have that F9 doesn't?
Also Starship is about a month or two from first orbital launch. Neutron is 2 years at minimum away. How do you see eactly Neutron launching customer payloads *before* Starship does?
DanFlashesSales t1_jdmqyyo wrote
>What innovations does Neutron have that F9 doesn't?
Methane engine, carbon fiber body, suspended 2nd stage, staged combustion engine, fairing that returns to the landing site with the first stage.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdmthaz wrote
Starship is focused heavily on reusability. While they may launch some Starlink missions early, they likely won't focus on customer payloads for a while, at least until reuse is working well. I would also expect SpaceX to take a while before lowing the price, both to focus on Starlink and to bring in some extra funds. And they need to put a lot of early focus on HLS for NASA.
All of this might give RL time to get Neutron going and to grab customers. Customers are also likely to grow as more try to compete with Starlink and try going away from SpaceX, similar to how OneWeb has been going with other launch providers (at least until Russia screwed them over).
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdonllf wrote
Rocket Lab doesn't know yet how to land and reuse rockets. It took SpaceX almost 10 landing attempts, and when they did land it another 2 years to reflight that booster. And many years after that to increase cadence. Rocket lab will have to get the same learning period and they move slower than SpaceX. And Starship will fly at minimum 2 years before Neutron 1st launch attempt. Where exactly do you see them have time to catch up?
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdpbt4u wrote
Also don't forget that SpaceX has very little reason to lower Starship's pricing at first. Sell more expensive flights to first for super heavy launch needs (Falcon Heavy and SLS replacement options). Once they are ready to start replacing the Falcon 9, then expect prices to come down.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdpbg48 wrote
RL has something SpaceX didn't. They can see in hindsight all of the failures SpaceX made and learn from them. SpaceX only had the Shuttle's failures to really learn from. SpaceX was also trying to improve as a launch provider in general during that time. RL has already had a decent bit of experience.
With Starship, SpaceX actually has reasons to take it slow before signing up customers on it. Not positive they will of course. But they have a huge amount of flights for Starlink first. They also really need to get reusability nailed down, so waiting on customers allows them to take more risks.
When it all comes down it, Rocket Lab may move faster than expected and Starship may take longer before signing up customers even if it's flying a bunch first.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdussoh wrote
Does Rocket Lab have access to internal SpaceX documentations of the software and rocket parts/materials that make F9 land and reused? No? Then watching them on YouTube doesn't really matter. They will have to learn to do it by themselves.
SpaceX has no reason to go slow with Starship. They can launch many Starlink flights before a customer if they want, but they need the experience sooner rather than later. Customers also don't care much about reuse at first, only for their payload to go to orbit, as they didn't care with F9 landing attempts.
Or Rocket Lab may move slower than expected, since even from first successful landing to reuse it took SpaceX 2 years time... And Starship can go a lot faster since its design has lessons learned from F9 landings and reuse.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdvgycn wrote
>They will have to learn to do it by themselves.
True, and I didn't otherwise. But SpaceX was extremely opened about many of the issues that Falcon 9 had.
>SpaceX has no reason to go slow with Starship.
Again, SpaceX has massive reasons to delay customers. They need the first several launches themselves with Starlink. That matters more to them than getting customers on Starship. And they need to focus on reusability first, which may mean many changes. Those changes have a chance to cause a flight failure. SpaceX would absolutely want to avoid damaging a customer payload. Not putting on customer payloads allows them to make more risky changes.
>Customers also don't care much about reuse at first, only for their payload to go to orbit, as they didn't care with F9 landing attempts.
They care about reliability. Period. Starship has none at the moment. That won't be the case for long, but a single failure would push customers back for a long time.
Plus why would any customers choose Starship over F9 right now? If Starship is more expensive per flight, they are choose F9. Starship won't be cheaper until it starts rapid reusable flights. The only other reason why someone would choose Starship is payload capacity. And if they are building something that big, they wouldn't have gone with RL anyways.
>Or Rocket Lab may move slower than expected, since even from first successful landing to reuse it took SpaceX 2 years time... And Starship can go a lot faster since its design has lessons learned from F9 landings and reuse.
RL could go slower and SS faster. However, that is unlikely. It took F9 two years as SpaceX was still learning to fly altogether. RL isn't going through the same issue. And again, RL has the ability to see the failures that F9 ran into to avoid the same. SS is trying to achieve something never before done. They will hit issues and delays. That's perfectly fine. SpaceX understands and accepts that.
Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdvhkym wrote
One final thing, SpaceX has no reason to rush faster on Starship as there is no competition. Rocket Lab is not competing with Starship and never will. They will take the scraps that fall off the table once Starship hits it's goals. Starlink alone is liking to make more profit this year than Rocket Lab. And it isn't even at 1/10th it's final goal.
Try to keep that in perspective. SpaceX won't be making a push for customers for Starship as it simply has no reason to.
rocketsocks t1_jdnbk80 wrote
Neutron has a simpler design for landing legs and returns the fairing along with the booster allowing for much more reliable and faster reuse. Neutron also uses LOX/methane which should provide for greater engine longevity, and the engine design is more sophisticated than Merlin-1D. They also designed Neutron to return to the launch site from the start, which simplifies operations.
Starship is likely closer to its first test launch than Neutron is, but that doesn't mean it's closer to operational commercial launches. Starship is vastly more complex than Neutron, and because it is larger many steps of making it operational will just inherently take longer. We've seen this already in how long the development process has been. SN10 was fully two years ago, they're still working on ground facilities problems, they're still working on problems with thermal protection, they're still working on problems with getting all of the engines working together, and so on.
I have faith that SpaceX will be able to tackle those problems successfully, but they just have a lot more to work on than Neutron has because it's a bigger and much more ambitious vehicle and flight profile. Neutron's design may be innovative but fundamentally it is within a by now fairly well explored problem space. They're not trying to do a chopstick catch, they're not trying to do spin apart staging, they're not trying to reuse the upper stage yet, they're not trying to light over two dozen engines at launch, etc.
More to the point, because Neutron is so much simpler they have a much lower bar before entering the commercial launch market. If they can reliably reach orbit (even if reuse is not at 100% with the first launch) then they can start getting business. Starship is likely to have a longer period of development even after the first test launches because it is a more complex design. Even if they achieve success with an orbital flight they still have more work to do, and I doubt they'll have commercial customers in that time frame.
It's very likely that Starship development will continue through a phase of Starlink-only launches for a period of many months, and depending on the timeline it's very possible that Neutron will be launching customer payloads before Starship does.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdoobox wrote
Until now SpaceX is the only provider who lands and reuse rockets. They only one who knows how to do that. Do you know how I call it, when someone else says that it's going to do it better? I call that BS. Rocket Lab should first attempt to land a rocket successfully, then relaunch it, and then they can talk. Until then...
Yeah,it does mean that exactly. Starship is about to launch in less than 2 months and then cadence will increase. Neutron is at minimum 2 years away, possibly 3-4, and then a few flights until they start landing attempts, another few to land, and another 2 years to relaunch that and then another 2 to increase launch cadence. Good luck.
rocketsocks t1_jdoqzdo wrote
The DC-X was doing vertical landings in the '90s, Blue Origin has been doing vertical landings with their New Shepard since 2015. Yes, it's harder to do with a larger rocket but Rocket Lab is stacking the odds in their favor (by going for RTLS only, for example), and they have the benefit of watching SpaceX having done it.
When SpaceX began testing landings of the Falcon 9 they had a grand total of 7 successful orbital launches under their belt. Rocket Lab has done over 30 launches of the Electron and they have a tremendous amount of public knowledge to draw from. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they succeeded with landing on the first attempt.
Starship is a great design, but it's incredibly ambitious and will take a while to achieve maturity because of its complexity and ambition. Far too many people are riding the Starship hype train imagining that as soon as it achieves partial success with an actual launch they'll start launching commercial payloads a week later and retire the Falcon 9 the week after that.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdusci8 wrote
Also a helicopter does vertical landings. Does this count? We are talking about orbital rockets. Not suborbitals.
Unless Rocket Lab have stolen the source code and trade secrets of the materials etc, they will have to pass the same amount of time of trial and error.
If Rocket Lab lands rocket on first landing attempt, then they definitely would have stolen some F9 trade secrets.
So? SpaceX is the fastest moving aerospace company. It will take sooner than you realize.
Literally no one has said that they will retire F9 immediately. No one. Starship has hype cause it's revolutionary rocket and people notice that. It will transform humanity's access to space. And that's not hyperbole.
And don't forget the important thing. SpaceX knows how to execute landings and reuse. They've been doing this for years, getting better and better. Starship's design is based on lessons learned from F9 landings and reuse. So most likely they will land and reuse it sooner rather than later. Much sooner than competitors like Neutron.
rocketsocks t1_jdw95o9 wrote
Landing a booster from an orbital rocket is a greater challenge than a sub-orbital rocket, but not insanely so. SpaceX took time to figure out how to do it because they were trying many different methods and they were trying to do the R&D extremely cheaply. And it worked. Today we have the benefit of hindsight, and companies like Rocket Lab have the benefit of being able to follow in SpaceX's footsteps, without having to steal their confidential trade secrets. Some lessons on the process are publicly known, such as the use of an entry burn to moderate speed, and so on. Some lessons are actually publicly available data because NASA commissioned SpaceX to gather data on supersonic retropropulsion to inform future Mars landings. SpaceX's "secret sauce" has never been trade secrets, it's always been it's ability to execute operationally and get things done.
Additionally, Neutron is attempting an easier flight profile than Falcon 9, it's not doing barge landings and instead focusing solely on returning to the launch site. SpaceX succeeded with their first ever attempt at an RTLS landing, which was their first successful landing overall, and their success rate for ground landings was very high (100% in fact) even while they were improving the reliability of drone ship landings. It's just an easier and simpler flight profile. But it requires you design the rocket from the get go with that in mind (because you need enough performance margin), which Neutron and Starship have been.
SpaceX may be able to get things done, but Starship is a tremendous amount to bite off all at once. The launch tower is different, the landing profiles are different, there is upper stage atmospheric re-entry and controlled descent, there is upper stage landing, there is the thermal protective system on the upper stage, there is orbital propellant transfer, and on and on and on. Getting all of these things working is required in order to meet their Artemis Program Starship-HLS commitments. Without those commitments it's possible that Starship could see commercial service in a sort of "early access" mode where they were still working on upper stage landings and reuse, but because of the Starship-HLS contract it's very likely that'll be a secondary priority.
I'm not sure why people have this idea that Starship is going to be easy or why Neutron is going to be hard. Neutron vs. Starship are just fundamentally different things. Neutron is a much shorter race to "run" compared to Starship, it's a sprint vs. a marathon. Even if SpaceX is much faster at working through Starship design and development issues than Rocket Lab is with Neutron they just have much, much longer to go.
seanflyon t1_jdwrme1 wrote
Are you calling the DC-X a suborbital rocket? That seems like a stretch, it never made it to space or close. DC-XA got 3140 meters up. That is about a quarter as high as a normal commercial aircraft flights.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdza5zc wrote
It is insanely so. x100 more difficult. If it wasn't, someone else would have landed an orbital rocket by now, when they landed a suborbital in the 90s.
What many different methods of landing the rocket did they try? Does Rocket Lab knows all of them?
Oh wow, SpaceX secret sauce is getting things done and execute!! Wow that's not what we call secret sauce!
I'm not sure you've noticed, that Gwenn and Elon have both said they will do around 100 Starship launches before land on the moon with HLS. So...that kind of mean a hell of a lot of launches with Starlink and customer's sats. And they don't need orbital refilling for that.
Cause SpaceX does know how to land and reuse. And Starship's design is made with lessons learned from F9. Rocket Lab and Neutron don't have lessons learned. That's why so many people believe Starship is easier for SpaceX than Neutron for Rocket Lab. And SpaceX does work faster. Rocket Lab will need at least 3 years for first launch, another 2 for first landing, another 2 for first reuse. So 7 years to make reusability and that's the minimum time. Starship will fly in a couple of months. So....
rocketsocks t1_je1ae4y wrote
> It is insanely so. x100 more difficult. If it wasn't, someone else would have landed an orbital rocket by now, when they landed a suborbital in the 90s.
It's not insanely difficult, it just hasn't been tried very often. Every program that tried VTVL rocket landing has succeeded (DC-XA, Blue Origin, SpaceX). It just hasn't been tried much. The reason it hasn't been tried much is because reuse hasn't been prioritized or done very pragmatically. Prior to the 2000s most RLV development focused on unrealistic designs such as the Shuttle or SSTOs, not on simple two stage launchers with booster reuse. More so, there hasn't been much competition in the launch vehicle space until the 2000s, for a variety of reasons, so extreme cost competitiveness wasn't a major factor until then.
Additionally, there are many natural optimizations that have traditionally been made with expendable launchers which deoptimize them for booster reuse. Expendable launchers tend to have simpler, lower cost first stages with only a few engines (Delta IV, Atlas V, and Ariane 5 only have one), while the majority of the cost and complexity is pushed into the upper stage. This makes first stage reuse much harder, especially in the VTVL configuration (it's very difficult to throttle down a single huge engine vs. simply turning off extra engines) and it makes it useless, as you end up simply saving the cost of expending the cheapest part of the rocket. You have to go into two stage launch vehicle design while planning ahead for VTVL first stage reuse to actually make it worthwhile. The genius of SpaceX was that they made very pragmatic design decisions that aimed at reusability straight out of the gate, and they figured out how to do the R&D for reuse within the context of paying commercial customer flights, making use of "thrown away" hardware that created the equivalent of a billion dollar funding stream. But much of that can be copied by anyone paying attention. SpaceX may have some degree of "secret sauce" that drives their success, but simply achieving VTVL reusable rockets is not it alone.
SuaveMofo t1_jdkfha7 wrote
Falcon 9 is still very much current generation. I look forward to starship but it's still many years away from being commercially used.
New_Poet_338 t1_jdkjbkj wrote
Many? There are three Starships ready to launch as soon as they are tested (though they pribably won't be) and one tested and ready for launch next month. SpaceX can build one in about two months now. Starship will be on the moon in two or (more likely) three years. It will probably be launching starlink satellites by year end. Of all the new generation, it is the closest to operation.
Sea_Ask6095 t1_jdlv4ey wrote
There is a long road ahead before starship has rapid and reliable reuse and is being produced efficiently.
New_Poet_338 t1_jdlwubt wrote
It is but that does not mean it can't be used commercially. They have been working on production methods for 2 years now so I suspect they are getting "produced effociently" down.
Reddit-runner t1_jdm7p1y wrote
>There is a long road ahead before starship has rapid and reliable reuse
This was also the case for Falcon9. But that didn't stop SpaceX from flying commercial payloads, did it?
Sea_Ask6095 t1_jdm896h wrote
They did cost a lot more. The super optimistic cost projections for starship won't come for many years. A hundred million dollar per launch starship would be great, but a 50 million dollar neutron would be better for a five tonne satellite.
Reddit-runner t1_jdmc8s2 wrote
>They did cost a lot more.
Falcon9 did cost more? Well, the price hasn't changed.
>A hundred million dollar per launch starship would be great,
I absolutely doubt that even a completely non-reusable launch would cost SpaceX more than $50M. The hull construction of Starship is extremely cheap. Material wise and manufacturing wise. The most expensive parts are the engines.... and the recovering hardware.
The engines are like 250-500k a piece. Without recovery hardware and return propellant and a 50to payload I guess SpaceX could get away with 25 engines for the booster and 5 sea-level optimised Raptors for the ship (the giant nozzle for the vacuum optimised engines is likely quite expensive)
So that's like $7.5‐15M for the engines. Lets say $10M for each hull, $10M for propellant and launch operation and there is still a $5M profit margin in the worst case if they offer the flight for $50M.
BrangdonJ t1_jdmeyrk wrote
They aren't going to be launching with a reduced configuration unless reuse attempts go very wrong. They will launch relatively cheaply, because some revenue is better than none, but only with configurations that are potentially reusable so they can get reuse perfected.
Reddit-runner t1_jdmjttc wrote
Sure.
But when they even only get the booster coming back at the beginning, they are already saving massively on hardware for the next launch.
So it's even less likely they have to sell their launches above $50M to break even.
BrangdonJ t1_jdmfqop wrote
I would expect them to price Starship at or below Falcon 9 from very early on. That lets them move payloads from Falcon 9 to Starship. Every Starship launch is an opportunity to practice landing of the first and second stages. It makes sense to include commercial payloads for their practice launches even if they do so at a loss, because they need to launch anyway and some revenue is better than none.
They'll charge what the market will bear, and it won't bear more than Falcon 9 (for payloads Falcon 9 can carry) because Starship doesn't have the track record of success.
KillyOP t1_jdtihru wrote
Very unlikely Starship will launch any starlinks this year. I don't expect payloads for starship until 2024.
[deleted] t1_jdkkzby wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdlo75w wrote
[removed]
Sea_Ask6095 t1_jdlv84q wrote
Launching a five tonne satellite on a starship won't necessarily be cheaper than a neutron. A 777 is cheap per passenger, it isn't cheap if you are flying 8 people.
Reddit-runner t1_jdm7vtu wrote
You pay per launch, not per kg.
This is not your local farmers market.
To fly a 777 always costs the same, regardless of the number of passengers in the back.
SFerrin_RW t1_jdjq8gh wrote
Neutron: 13,000kg to ELO
Falcon 9: 22,500kg to LEO
Terran R: 20,000kg to LEO
​
Good luck.
mfb- t1_jdk8eco wrote
Almost all Falcon 9 launches are reusable, in that case you only have ~16-17 tonnes to LEO and the cost per kilogram is similar, as discussed in the article. A bit less payload, a bit cheaper per launch. Booking an expendable Falcon 9 flight costs more.
Xaxxon t1_jdnanqw wrote
Everyone comparing a paper rocket "price" to a flying rocket actual price.
mfb- t1_jdnbbpn wrote
Yes, we are studying if the planned launch price of a future rocket will be competitive with current rockets.
Xaxxon t1_jdnbmio wrote
"planned prices" aren't competitive with anything because they're not actual prices.
People say all sorts of shit when it doesn't cost them anything to say it. Are they taking guaranteed orders at that price? If not, it's not even worth discussing.
didi0625 t1_jdk82x8 wrote
What will be the price of an hypothetical terran R ?
Payload is a thing but price/kg is key. If you can send 20T to LEO but they only have 12T of cargo... You're going to go for the cheaper launcher.
Reddit-runner t1_jdm8iot wrote
>If you can send 20T to LEO but they only have 12T of cargo... You're going to go for the cheaper launcher.
Really depends on how much cheaper the smaller launcher is.
In a market where a 70% bigger launcher costs only a few millions more, it will make sense to increase the mass of your satellite/payload so you can massively save on development and manufacturing cost.
Because if your requirements stay the same but you can double the mass, your costs go down fourfold. (Roughly speaking)
OldWrangler9033 t1_jdkzjbe wrote
I think it depends on frequency of launches. If they end up being as reusable and more relaunchable than Falcon 9, they could possibly catch up.
Such-Echo6002 t1_jdk2bko wrote
Terran R is a fantasy. Relativity didn’t get to orbit with their first rocket. They have another 3-5 years of learning ahead
DreamChaserSt t1_jdk5zx6 wrote
Wouldn't a fantasy imply they have nothing to show? Aeon R engines are being built and tested. And not getting to orbit on the first launch is far from a bad thing in spaceflight, very few rockets work the first time. They made it past Max-Q, even past MECO and stage separation, Falcon 1 didn't get that far during its maiden launch.
FutureMartian97 t1_jdkcr9y wrote
Almost no one has gotten to orbit on their first launch. They even said the mission would be considered a success if they made it to Max Q
SFerrin_RW t1_jdke4cv wrote
No less fantasy than Neutron. Relativity is running engines for Terran R right now. And Rocket Labs?
Such-Echo6002 t1_jdkf08e wrote
There’s a difference between a company that has had 33 successful launches to orbit and a company that has had zero successful launches to orbit. Relativity will likely do fine, but they have not proven yet that they can put something into orbit. RocketLab has, ~33 times. There’s something to be said for the learnings that RocketLab has gone through with electron and relativity lacks.
ApplicationDifferent t1_jdlhm24 wrote
Falcon 9 is a fantasy. Spacex didnt get to orbit with their first rocket.
3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_jdjme5l wrote
I'm a huge fan of Rocket Lab. I'll admit it. Some people are SpaceX diehards. I really want to see Rocket Lab thrive, and I expect they will. They can absolutely compete in the small sat market, and their Photon spacecraft is more or less unique in the commercial market. Even SpaceX doesn't have that. Starship can land a lot of mass on orbiting bodies, amazing. Photon can deliver science experiments to other planets at a price far less than a space agency. Also amazing.
What a time to be alive. How cool, how dramatic and enthralling.
cnbc_official OP t1_jdjakh1 wrote
Rocket Lab is building a bigger, reusable launch vehicle called Neutron, and it’s targeting a price point near $50 million per launch to challenge Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
“We are positioning Neutron to compete directly with the Falcon 9,” Rocket Lab Chief Financial Officer Adam Spice said earlier this week, speaking at a Bank of America event in London on Tuesday.
The company announced Neutron when it went public in 2021, with Spice saying the rocket remains on track to debut in 2024. During its fourth-quarter report last month, Rocket Lab said it had begun producing the first tank structures of Neutron, as well as construction of the launch pad for the rocket. The company plans to conduct the first “hot fire test” of an Archimedes engine, which will power Neutron, “by the end of the year,” Spice said.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/24/rocket-lab-neutron-launch-price-challenges-spacex.html
sometimes-wondering t1_jdjn87o wrote
Why would the say "Elon Musk's SpaceX" and not say "Peter Beck's Rocket Lab"
binary_spaniard t1_jdk211k wrote
Because 99% of people hasn't heard of Peter Beck.
Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdlydjp wrote
Cause Elon Musk's name is clickbait..dah
And SpaceX's too. That's the reason they mention them in this article and its headline
Hustler-1 t1_jdjstx8 wrote
I'm really rooting for them. SpaceX is in desperate need of competition.
GreatNoodleLord t1_jdm0900 wrote
Ah the thing i have been waiting for..the real space race has begun..usually the one who starts things ends up in the bin and others take over...will be fascinating to see the new innovations and speed up.
VengenaceIsMyName t1_jdkp669 wrote
A long time ago Elon claimed that he wanted increased competition in the launch services sector. Let’s see if he still feels that way
Xaxxon t1_jdnaz9h wrote
Looking at what he's said/done about EVs it seems like he's usually pretty honest about this kind of thing.
The real differentiator is execution. Competitors don't have the same level of execution because no one else is willing to push as hard.
Decronym t1_jdkqyga wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASDS|Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)| |DoD|US Department of Defense| |EELV|Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle| |GEO|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |GTO|Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit| |HLS|Human Landing System (Artemis)| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |LOX|Liquid Oxygen| |MECO|Main Engine Cut-Off| | |MainEngineCutOff podcast| |NET|No Earlier Than| |NSSL|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV| |RLV|Reusable Launch Vehicle| |RTLS|Return to Launch Site| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |SSTO|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |USSF|United States Space Force| |VTVL|Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |retropropulsion|Thrust in the opposite direction to current motion, reducing speed|
^([Thread #8722 for this sub, first seen 25th Mar 2023, 02:36]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
OldWrangler9033 t1_jdkzct1 wrote
Depends how well it performs in the long term. Barring Starship/Super Heavy's approval and development flights work out, it will take bit catchup with Falcon 9.
SpaceX maybe hurting after Rocket Lab's Neutron and hopefully Terran R work out in the end.
Xaxxon t1_jdnau2q wrote
> Terran R
That's pie in the sky at this point. They can't even make orbit.
OldWrangler9033 t1_jdrzycp wrote
Its their first launch, even SpaceX didn't make it up there on the first try.
Xaxxon t1_jdseoje wrote
Spacex wasn’t talking about building starship before f1 got to orbit.
Evil_Merlin t1_jdnfgf5 wrote
By the time it is launched for its first flight, SpaceX will be phasing out the Falcon9 for the Starship anyway...
With a NET of 2024... that's a rather large window.
At least MARS and LC-2 are functional.
I hope for the best, as the more launch vehicles, the cheaper lofting stuff into LEO gets. Which is a good thing. Because that leads to putting more humans and human habitats into space eventually but let's get a launch done first.
Space is hard. Relativity found out that adage again a few days ago.
[deleted] t1_jdmmf6u wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jdni9ly wrote
[removed]
pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_jdjr8tw wrote
This is awesome. The best part about this is that it will cause SpaceX to lower their prices. The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins. Gwynne Shotwell was quoted somewhere saying "we spent a billion developing this and we want to recover those costs" (paraphrased). They can do that if no competitor forces them to drop costs.
However, things will be tough for Rocketlab. SpaceX had the benefit of being the only game in town with a reusable rocket, so they got lots of profit. This article claims that Neutron will cost $25 million per launch but be priced at $50M, for a 50% profit margin. But, I suspect F9 has similiar costs. SpaceX has largely recouped their development costs so they can afford to compete with Rocketlab on price. If Rocketlab engages in the price war, they will never recover their development costs.
Rocketlab claims that the biggest cost is the expendable upper stage, and I suspect the same is true for SpaceX. When Starship shows up, what are these other launch providers going to do? How will they make enough money with their partially reusable rockets to fund a fully reusable competitor to Starship?
Edit: I meant to put a $k in my money numbers like $3.3k/kg, my apologies. Changed it to $3300/kg