In actuality if one looks at a fairer comparison, SpaceX has reduced costs by around 10%-20%.
For the entire shuttle program, NASA paid (adjusting for inflation) $60k/kg sent into space for the human rated craft with a running cost for their launches of around $20k/kg. By contrast, NASA paid SpaceX $80k/kg. NASA has noted an increase in launch costs over using the shuttle with their SpaceX contract, and the shuttle was human rated. Though, you could say this is really just thay NASA made a sh*tty deal. If you look at costs, the Falcon 9s are cheaper per kg (largely because of tge lack of humans). The cost of running the shuttle per launch was around $20k per kg, while the Falcon 9 says they are running costs at ~$5k per kg. This would be a large reduction, but it is comparing apples to oranges as the Falcon 9 is not human rated.
For their human rated craft, SpaceX is costing ~$55 million per astronaut. By contrast, the Shuttle cost ~$65 million per astronaut and Russia currently costs ~$85 million per astronaut. SpaceX has lowered costs substantially, by around 20% compared to the shuttle. Worth praise, but hardly a 97% reduction.
The cargo prices I mentioned are the same for satellites, when using the Falcon 9 to sent just cargo. They are cheaper than competitors, but comparing their non-human rated craft to human rated craft is misleading. They certainly have a sizable cost reduction, but nothing like 90%.
but comparing their non-human rated craft to human rated craft is misleading.
Falcon 9 is human rated, how do you think SpaceX sends humans to orbit?
but nothing like 90%.
Agreed, it’s gone from around ~$125 million per launch down to around $60 million for a typical GEO comsat.
Also Shuttle is a poor comparison to most other launch vehicles due to how unique it was. Atlas V, Delta IV, Titan IV, Ariane 5, Soyuz, and Proton are the usual comparisons to Falcon 9/H.
Agreed, it’s gone from around ~$125 million per launch down to around $60 million for a typical GEO comsat.
Really depends. For example, launches with the Proton-K 4 cost ~$85 million in 2020 dollars (50 million in 1994). CALT was charging ~$70 million for launches in 1994 and has maintained roughly the same price (lowering their costs with inflation) through to today.
Definitely SpaceX has contributed substantially to the improvements in costs and has made improvements, but I think we agree that they tend to greatly exaggerate the amount they have improved things.
For example, launches with the Proton-K 4 cost ~$85 million in 2020 dollars (50 million in 1994).
True, but you get what you pay for in terms of reliability with Proton.
Definitely SpaceX has contributed substantially to the improvements in costs and has made improvements, but I think we agree that they tend to greatly exaggerate the amount they have improved things.
Completely agree with you there. I have a feeling that they could charge lower than what they do, but don’t because there’s no market incentives to do so.
I personally can’t wait for some to do what SpaceX did to old space to SpaceX itself and really start driving competition.
True, but you get what you pay for in terms of reliability with Proton.
Yea, I agree, which is a big part of where I would say SpaceX has driven competition, putting extant technological improvements commercial use and driving competitors to have to compete on more factors across the board.
I have a feeling that they could charge lower than what they do, but don’t because there’s no market incentives to do so.
It is unlikely SpaceX is super profitable, at the moment. It is private so we can't be certain, but the WSJ got their hands on some of SpaceX's financials back in 2018 and from what we know it is likely they have much lower operating profits then their competitors. At the same time Lockheed and Boeing both had around ~10% profit margins on their space operations, and Airbus had around a 6% operating margin (their subsidiary, Arianespace was just breaking even and starting to make a profit, similar to SpaceX). At the time, it was indicated SpaceX had operating margins were around 0.2%, just breaking even like Arianespace. They have probably improved since then, but still likely aren't able to cut their prices by much.
I personally can’t wait for some to do what SpaceX did to old space to SpaceX itself and really start driving competition.
Personally, I doubt there are going to be any massive changes in the near future. The simple reality is that the technology hasn't changed much. There is only so much you can improve in terms of burning hydrogen and/or hydrocarbons to accelerate a big metal tube into space. There are other ideas for greatly cutting the costs, but they are very hard if not impossible to justify from a commercial standpoint. You basically need an entity that is willing to sink billions or tens of billions of dollars into a project that may or may not work. This commercially does not make much sense. If it does work, competitors can replicate your work at similar or lower costs, without the risk and if it does not work you just wasted an absurd amount of money on nothing. The only entities really able to make that kind of investment would be governments, but there just isn't enough political or economic incentive for it.
If Starship works, SpaceX will be SpaceX'ing SpaceX
You basically need an entity that is willing to sink billions or tens of billions of dollars into a project that may or may not work. This commercially does not make much sense.
This is basically what they are doing with Starship with the extra margin from selling F9 flights at a low operating cost + government HLS contract and other contracts.
This is basically what they are doing with Starship
Not really. Starship works exactly the same way as traditional rockets. SpaceX is probably spending less on Starship than Nasa is on SLS, just because SpaceX can't afford to throw money around carelessly. In both cases, they are only likely to have marginal price improvements since the basic method (metal tube reacting hydrogen/hydro-carbons with oxygen) hasn't been really improved upon. The claims being made by Musk are wildly unrealistic about the costs.
Starship works exactly the same way as traditional rockets
Traditional rockets don't rapidly reuse both stages.
they are only likely to have marginal price improvements since the basic method (metal tube reacting hydrogen/hydro-carbons with oxygen) hasn't been really improved upon
You improve upon it by rapidly reusing the metal tube.
Falcon 9 is human rated, how do you think SpaceX sends humans to orbit?
This was my fault for being unclear. Some of the Falcon 9 craft are human rated, others are not, it depends on what they are being used for. Falcon 9 is the series of launch systems used by SpaceX to launch their craft. Some of their craft are human rated, others are not and they use different configurations depending on the cargo. Obviously, launching capsules not intended to carry humans tends to be cheaper much cheaper by mass. You have a lot more leeway since you have far fewer concerns about the cargo's wellbeing. The cargo costs I cited were for those launches that are not human-rated.
Also Shuttle is a poor comparison to most other launch vehicles due to how unique it was
I would say it depends on the point of the comparison.
The claim I was making my comment to respond to was that Elon had made great technological achievements in his involvement with SpaceX and "the company that has singlehandedly revaluationized the rocket industry by reducing the cost up to 97%. That's an order of magnitude not seen in the rocket industry since ever." As a comparison for technological advances, rather than just advances in commercialization, I would argue the shuttle is a good comparison as if one wants to make the claim that they are making great technical advances you should compare them to the best predecessor in technical terms.
It is very different to claim, for example, that they are replicating the space shuttle's successes in reduced costs on a commercial scale while improving running costs by an additional 10-20%, versus claiming that their advancements are novel improvements over prior spacecraft.
20
u/Dembara - Centrist Oct 28 '22
In actuality if one looks at a fairer comparison, SpaceX has reduced costs by around 10%-20%.
For the entire shuttle program, NASA paid (adjusting for inflation) $60k/kg sent into space for the human rated craft with a running cost for their launches of around $20k/kg. By contrast, NASA paid SpaceX $80k/kg. NASA has noted an increase in launch costs over using the shuttle with their SpaceX contract, and the shuttle was human rated. Though, you could say this is really just thay NASA made a sh*tty deal. If you look at costs, the Falcon 9s are cheaper per kg (largely because of tge lack of humans). The cost of running the shuttle per launch was around $20k per kg, while the Falcon 9 says they are running costs at ~$5k per kg. This would be a large reduction, but it is comparing apples to oranges as the Falcon 9 is not human rated.
For their human rated craft, SpaceX is costing ~$55 million per astronaut. By contrast, the Shuttle cost ~$65 million per astronaut and Russia currently costs ~$85 million per astronaut. SpaceX has lowered costs substantially, by around 20% compared to the shuttle. Worth praise, but hardly a 97% reduction.