No way they will fly one of these to the Moon in 2022. Will see the Shuttle effect, ie. introducing engineering workarounds that will greatly increase costs.
The fact that SpaceX has missed every deadline Musk has ever set?
They get some absolutely impressive and ground-breaking stuff done, but they don't do it on-time.
I think they'll get to the Moon. I don't think they'll do it on the original schedule.
SpaceX is a private company. Do you have a source for what their actual costs are for any of these projects?
Musk has claimed all kinds of things relating to costs with his other public companies, and none of it has been true.
You can afford to undercut profitable companies when you set OPM on fire.
You get what you pay for: with ULA, your payload makes it to orbit/space every time. With SpaceX, there's a significant non-zero risk of losing your payload, and that risk discount is what lets SpaceX undercut ULA. (That risk discount is also why SpaceX has to severely undercut ULA; the economics from a customer perspective wouldn't work out if SpaceX were only a small discount from ULA prices.)
Are you talking about Zuma?
There's "no explanation" because it was a classified launch, and the indications we do have are that it was an issue with a Northrop Grumman payload adapter.
ULA's perfect score is a bit of a cheat, as the rockets they launch were inherited. The first flight of the Delta IV Heavy, for example, was a partial failure... but happened before ULA's formation.
"SpaceX will meet one of Musk's deadlines" is, thus far, not a statement I'd bet on coming true.
ISRO launches are cheaper than SpaceX
RocketLab is in the same ballpark for a smallsat launch (when compared to the SX smallsat program, I realize there are other rideshare options that exist https://www.spacex.com/smallsat)
Unfortunately ULA's launch cost calculator doesn't show final prices anymore (https://www.rocketbuilder.com/), but they're now selling Atlas launches for under $100 million (their "ULA Value" numbers due to reduced schedule slip might be a bit generous but aren't any more egregious than how Tesla includes "potential savings" in the purchase price).
Ariane launches are in the same neighborhood as ULA, perhaps a bit cheaper although they've had occassional schedule issues due to the geopolitical situation in their remote outpost of the EU.
The reality is ISRO and RocketLab play in a totally different market. Neither can compete against dedicated small sat launches from SpaceX. That is a fact that the CEO of RocketLab and many other small launcher CEO have admitted.
And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke.
ULA cheapest Atlas with no other extra service might be 100M$ but that gives a 60M$ Falcon 9. And just btw, ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition.
For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market.
Arianespace is not as cheap as ULA per rocket, maybe with Ariane 6 that will change. Ariane 5 costs 200M$ and launching one only makes sense if you can stack two big Geosats.
10x was wrong, but nobody is close in any practical sense.
If you're going to make personal attacks, you should at least strive to be factually correct with your own claims.
> ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition.
False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] and have more on their future manifest. It's true that their launches for the government are more expensive, but that is also the case with SpaceX's government launches: they charged about $90 million each for the most recent GPS-3 flights[2]. Since government payloads are typically uninsured, you also need to take that into account that higher premiums with SpaceX aren't reflected in those launch costs (because the risk is assumed by the gov directly)
> And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke.
Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX (either directly or through a rideshare provider like Spaceflight (RIP)). They're targeting a different market but there is still some overlap. Pound for pound Rocketlab is still more expensive, but there's value in being able to choose your own orbit instead of being stuck with wherever your ridebuddies want to go. Anyone who has used Uber Pool or Lyft Line is familiar with this phenomenon.
> Ariane 5 costs 200M$ (sic)
No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD.
> For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market.
I think that is unlikely. ULA would certainly have fewer flights if the DOD wasn't trying to ensure the viability of multiple EELV/NSSL launch vehicles, but they would definitely still have some. In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering (e.g. when it comes to requirements like big fairing, and horizontal integration. There's also a number of orbits that a Falcon 9 can't hit with the sorts of heavy payloads that the IC likes to send via GTO or even direct to GEO-- it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the Heavy is certified)
> 10x was wrong
Agreed. It's hard to make a totally apples to apples comparison, but based off of recent awards[3] they are certainly within the same order of magnitude. ULA costs maybe 50% more, but it's hard to judge how the different launch providers affect the mission capabilities. e.g. if ULA is able to send something direct to GEO and get closer to the desired apogee, the bus might save a year's worth of propellant. For a constellation like SBIRS where each satellite costs just shy of $1 billion, another year of capability is nothing to sneeze at
[1]: A random example here https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm
[2]: https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1...
[3]: https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch...
Lets be clear here. Before SpaceX showed up the US had about 0% of the commercial launch market. And yes, ULA had a couple of commercial launches, but incredibly few, you could probably count all the commercial launches in the post-2000 on one hand.
What you say is true, Falcon 9 is also more expensive for the DoD as well. But we are still talking about 40M plus in difference minimum.
> Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX
I would disagree with that. Maybe a few rideshares (tiny, tiny market) but more likely those would launch on ISRO rocket or one from China.
> No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD.
Whats your evidence for that? That would price would make Ariane 5 dominate in the GTO missions and they clearly are not.
If that were their price they would not have thrown away the Ariane 5 to replace it with Ariane 6.
Btw, they officially said that Ariane 6 would be around 100M and it has less performance then Ariane 5. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do if the Ariane 5 were 100M$ as the Ariane 6 is less performant then 5.
I have done this research a few years ago, and I can't send you reference to the price, but I am 100% sure its much more then 100M$.
> In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering
The DoD has already certified that they can fly all orbits that the DoD requires.
However your argument is correct for a small number of launches. Mostly those that require a larger fairing or vertical integration.
SpaceX is adding the larger fairing and a vertical integration bay, they are now already allowed to compete for all future DoD launches.
Until the last contract handout, ULA absolutely was the only provider so many of the flights on their books are from that.
But on those alone ULA could not survive. We will see how the EELV2 turns out.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that SpaceX is by far the cheapest and it seems they are making the best margin as well.
Sorry if my initial statement was rude.
There's no way they'll land on the moon in 2022.
It might have been related to the schedule slippage on crew dragon though, considering they are just now ready to fly astronauts on crew dragon.
October last year was the first presentation of the new design, a year before that was the presentation of the previous design, together with the "Dear Moon" mission.
I don't think citing dates like that in a way that implies schedule slippage is fair.
And they never claimed they will land on the moon by 2022. Maybe fly around the moon in 2023.
Elon has already indicated that they are hoping to prove out Starship and then get NASA to approve them substituting it for those missions [1].
[1] Tweet seems to be deleted, so here's an embedded copy on NSF https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47352.msg2...
Musk seems to be off by 1.8 on average.
1.8 is also one Mars year in Earth years. Coincidence?
Yes.
Because I am not sure how you average out against an infinite time frame (E.g. where are the country-wide summon, snake-charger, car carrier, etc?).
Model Y was early, Model 3 was pretty close to on time, Starship is progressing well.
Will be interesting to see how Cybertruck, Semi and new Roadster stick to their timelines.
• even if they manage the first orbital flight this year, there's no guarantee they'll stick the landing as well (took quite a few tests for F-9)
• Mars missions require in-orbit refuelling, thus a tanker version of the fairing and a docking adaptor need tobe developed first
• given they manage to develop both the tanker fairing and the docking adaptor earlier next year, they'd still need to test the refuelling process
• provided they have a working Starship, a proven in-orbit refuelling capability and a reliable landing system for Mars (i.e. no carefully prepared landing pads and guided reentry), they'd still be missing any kind of payload to actually send to Mars (in-situ fuel production plant, habitat module, or anything else useful)
There's just so many firsts that they'd need to achieve that there's zero room for failure to get all that done within 24 months. And that's just not in any way realistic.
Sure, but they have 2 years to pull that off, and there is a way this happens even in one it's just a bit ambitious.
> Mars missions require in-orbit refuelling, thus a tanker version of the fairing and a docking adaptor need to be developed first
Tanker version is dead simple, just put more rings in both tank sections. In-orbit refuelling might be a bit trickier since it's reasonably novel (technically it's done with the ISS) - but the concept is really simple. SpaceX has done docking before and has complete design authority over both things docking together, I doubt the adapter part is a serious concern for them.
> and a reliable landing system for Mars
Who said anything about reliable?
> they'd still be missing any kind of payload to actually send to Mars
A cybertruck or something. The point is the PR and the capability demonstration not the payload. If they pull this off you can bet they can get significant NASA funding to do it with NASA funded cargo next time around.
They don't need a 'tanker version' initially any Starship can refuel any other Starship. The 'tanker version' would just make it more efficient.
How do you know that they don't have any payload? Do you have special insight into what SpaceX is doing? Or are you just assuming because they haven't developed that stuff outside in a tent it can't possibly exist.
I know that because Musk said so himself several times. His priority is providing the means of transportation - everything else is someone else's job.
The idea is to let the first Starships just sit on Mars and serve as part of the first colony.
There's a distinction to be made between cargo ships, tankers, and crew transport. The first uncrewed cargo flights have zero change of returning to Earth.
There's simply no infrastructure for generating fuel and refuelling yet. So unless you want to tell me that Musk is some sort of space wizard able to conjure methane fuel into the tanks of the first cargo ships that land on Mars, this is exactly what's going to happen.