Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_jdjr8tw wrote

  • If Neutron is priced at $50M for a 15 tonne LEO payload, that's $3300/kg.
  • Falcon 9 launches 17.4 tonnes to LEO (when landing on ASDS, from wikipedia), priced at $67M, which is $3800/kg

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

45

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.

16

Testimones t1_jdljoiw wrote

Am I completely wrong when I calculate 15000*$3.3 and get $49500? Is $3.3 meant to mean $3300?

9

livinginspace t1_jdmic0p wrote

Yes, you're right. $3.3/kg would mean you can get a ticket to space for $250

6

Testimones t1_jdmmfsv wrote

You are assuming quite a lot about my (lack) of weight there mate 🥲

6

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.

6

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.

1

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1

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

15

Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdlxyqq wrote

Rocket Lab's website says Neutron will do 13 tons to LEO, not 15.

11

DBDude t1_jdkl6kn wrote

Estimated $15 million for the upper stage, the most expensive part of the launch.

9

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.

5

therealdjred t1_jdp8fi5 wrote

How on earth do posts with math wrong by a factor of 1000 get upvotes???

3

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.

2

Supermeme1001 t1_jdpx5ft wrote

much worse paper rockets already have hundreds of millions to billions in "contracts"

1

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.

−1

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.

13

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?

−4

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.

7

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.

−6

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.

9

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.

−2

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.

6

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.

5

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.

−4

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.

12

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.

−6

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.

8

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.

−1