Will it really be cheaper to launch a 150 ton payload to orbit in the year 2027 than it is to launch a 20 ton payload...

What the fuck does that have to do with OP?

Improvements in rocketry are tangible and not exponential, right now it's $62 million to send 20 tons to LEO, a decade ago that would have cost $150 million, next year it might cost as "little" as $30 million

It costs like 4 billion dollars to launch a rocket with a substantial payload. Where are you getting your numbers.

>right now it's $62 million to send 20 tons to LEO
~13 tons. Launching a Falcon 9 in expendable mode is a special service which is negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Why is this thread such a shitshow?

>It costs like 4 billion dollars to launch a rocket with a substantial payload.

1. What exactly do you think constitutes a "substantial payload?"
2. How old were you when your lobotomy was performed?

>Orbital Ring
>Only $15B
What the fuck?

oh... now I get it
youtu.be/3nWfT2UDkIg

Lel even a yuge ass comm sat is only like $400m. There's some spy shit in the $1-2b range. But your still a fagot.

>sauce I build parts for space ships, satellites and airplanes irl

stop being such a spastic

Rocket business was incredibly overpriced due to old monopolies and bureaucracy so it skewed perspective on how much things can cost. But there's a chance spacex' strategy might fall apart for the BFR if
>sat market over saturates before/shortly after it's done - important source of income lost
>no interest from private or government entities for bleo payloads - expected source of income never appears
The latter is actually likely because of budgets, existing connections, and general line of thought (each mission is a one of a kind flagship mission involving decades and billions).

I'm still skeptical about the BFR.
They are too chicken to even launch Falcons for a 3rd time right now and they're already building a rocket that's not just of an unprecedented size, but also endlessly and immediately reusable?

I mean, I wish them the best, but I'll still be surprised if this actually works out.

Where is the dome?

They'll be going into the satellite business themselves
And they'll be doing beyond earth orbit missions themselves, if needed.

Obviously no government is going to refuse to go to the moon when the BFR exists & is proven to works

>They are too chicken to even launch Falcons for a 3rd time right now
They've only done 3 reflights and 19 recoveries, and you think they're "chicken" for not having a double reuse among their first 3 reflights?

Falcon 9 reusability was always an incremental development plan: they get it going to orbit, they get recovery working, they get reuse with refurbishment working, and finally they get rapid reuse working. Each step is a learning process, and they knew that going in. There are limits to what they can do without getting specific experience, and it takes time to study and apply lessons learned.

They're preparing to switch over to the Block 5 version, which incorporates various small changes which they believe will make it suitable for reuse without lengthy refurbishment.

>they're already building a rocket that's not just of an unprecedented size
BFR's only about 50% larger than Saturn V. That's a modest scale increase. Nobody who seriously studies these things believes that Saturn V was the the largest rocket possible. They've already demonstrated construction of a tank at a larger diameter than needed, and an engine near the size they intend to use.

As for the number of engines, 31 is only slightly more than the 27 they're firing together on Falcon Heavy, which they've put years of work into already and are preparing to launch next month.

>but also endlessly and immediately reusable?
Not endlessly. Like Falcon 9, it will be a learning process. Their goal is 1000/100/10 reuses for booster/upper/interplanetary, but they're unlikely to achieve that in the first few years.

Falcon 9 was a compromise design. It had to be affordable to fly as an expendable rocket, and they needed to get it done fast enough to stay in business. Plus it was their first try at a rocket and engine family.

BFR is reusable only. No compromise, and they've had lots of time to gain experience and develop proper systems for a reusable rocket.

falcon 9's development and operational costs are subsidized by government contracts

it's more likely around $100-120 mil for 13 tons

Development, yes. Operational cost, no.

NASA has provided about $400 million in development funds to SpaceX. They've also fully paid for 14 Dragon missions for which they may have overpaid compared to other customers by as much as $20 million each (although this is very debatable). So, they've provided maybe $700 million. However, this has been divided between Dragon and Falcon 9. It's unrealistic to estimate that they've provided more than $400 million in subsidies to Falcon 9.

So with the 44 Falcon 9 launches, the government subsidy has not amounted to more than $9 million per launch. Without it, you could expect Falcon 9 launches to be around $70 million rather than around $60 million, assuming all of this has to be amortized over the flights so far. If you assume the development costs will be amortized over 300 flights, then it's more like a $1.5 million subsidy per flight. By any interpretation, this subsidy is far smaller than what ULA or the Ariane program gets, yet the Falcon 9 prices are much lower.

Significant discounts for reusing stages should start next year (they already offer a 5%, or ~$3 million discount -- by the end of next year price will likely fall to around $50 million), and the development costs will be amortized over more launches while the proportion of NASA launches should shrink.

youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4

spacex doesn't have a single privately owned pad, and almost all of their properties are government-owned

NASA and the Air Force pay hundreds of millions per year to keep these launch facilities maintained

SpaceX spent in excess of $1.5 billion developing falcon 9. Even if every flight made $60 million in profit there's no way they've turned a profit yet.

They are entirely held up and supported by government contracts.

reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7itj1t/how_spacexs_monster_mars_rocket_compares_to_the/

launch systems have very large fixed costs, so price depends strongly on launch rate

therefore if the rocket flies like multiple times a week then yes it will be very cheap both per launch and per ton to orbit

if it flies twice a month then not really

>spacex doesn't have a single privately owned pad, and almost all of their properties are government-owned
Yes, it's really fucking hard to build a private spaceport. It's a bit like trying to build your own highway. Nobody can negotiate with every property owner in the path, the government has to use eminent domain. Similarly, no private entity has the authority to tell everyone to get the fuck out of the way when they want to launch a rocket. The private spaceport SpaceX is building in Texas requires specially negotiated government cooperation to build and operate.

Do you complain the same way about airlines not owning the airports they land at? SpaceX leases, has heavily modified, and maintains the pads they use.

>SpaceX spent in excess of $1.5 billion developing falcon 9. Even if every flight made $60 million in profit there's no way they've turned a profit yet.
At least do basic arithmetic. 44 flights times $60 million is $2.6 billion. That would be a billion-dollar profit. Anyway, where'd you get this $1.5 billion figure? From what I've heard, that's several hundreds of millions over what they actually spent.

SpaceX doesn't need to be profitable so soon. They're still just getting their launch vehicle up to production rates. This is big business, and private investors can put billions of dollars in when they expect to get it back out again. SpaceX is expected to launch 30+ rockets per year for the next several years.

Anyway, $62 million is for a bare-bones launch. Nobody pays that little, that I've heard of. Everyone orders additional services. On top of that, customers don't just pay when the launch is done, they pay an up-front deposit, and then pay in installments as the arrangements are made. So they've received payments from every customer on their manifest, not just the ones they've launched.

It'll cost more because we'll have less resources.