SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches
spacenews.com
spacenews.com
Supposedly they've been selling launches for ~$74M per launch.
https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/
If its profitable at $74M then I'd imagine its more profitable at $88.8M. There could be some extra costs for dealing with government customers, but I imagine a lot of those $74M launches were also government customers. Lots of estimates of their cost per launch is somewhere <$20M.
That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs.
The thing is, unless you massively increase the volume of Falcon 9, you are not going to get it that much cheaper. Its already incredibly cheap given that its made out of fancy aerospace material that needs to be shaped and welded with complex processes. If they invested a lot, could they get it a little cheaper? Sure maybe a few % ever year.
They have been redesigning the Falcon 9 over and over again to optimize its manufacture and re-usability. They are mass producing the second stage about faster and cheaper then any other rocket structure of that complexity and size. What you suggest they should do they have already done, multiple times.
But you run into limits. You could replace the Merlin engine with an engine of the same size that uses kerolox but is staged. Not much more you can do on the Merlin itself, except very marginal improvements. But if you do that you need to make the rocket longer, but Falcon is already on the upper limit of rocket of that diameter.
So you need to increase the width. So you are already doing a new staged engine, and now your doing a very different structure already. Now you also need to change the shape of your downcomer, you have different thermodynamics of reentry, you redesign the engine bay and its heat protection. Basically you are building a new rocket at that point and the payoff for such a huge effort, is marginal at best.
Their design has effectively reached a local maximum. Marginal improvements are possible and they are doing that but its not going to change fundamentally and its not going to get to their goal. Any new rocket they develop, must be more then a marginal improvement. Airbus and Boeing don't develop new planes unless the efficiency (therefore cost) improves by 20-30%.
To actually reach the next level of profit opportunity you need to achieve full re-usability. That the next major step that can unlock much cheaper price to orbit. That's where your capital investment can have actual real payoff. Because it makes much larger constellation possible.
> That makes me think that the cost efficiency of falcon nine rests almost totally on streamlined operations, not technology. And that there might be a shell game going on regarding real costs.
Yeah and how is that streamlined operation possible you think? Maybe it has to do that they have a reusable fleet of boosters that have been highly optimized to be able to land and reused quickly. Maybe it has to do with them optimizing the shit out of their launch infrastructure, like pioneering automatic flight termination and 100s of other things. That is the technology.
And there is no shell game going on, they make a lot of profit from Falcon 9 but reinvest everything in Starship, thus their rocket division overall is losing money.
> To actually reach the next level of profit opportunity you need to achieve full re-usability.
Upper stage reusability is hard, heavy, and expensive. At least 5X as hard as booster reusability. On top of that they have to bet that they can scale starship launches to the point where they can economically fly 15 starship refueling missions just to get one starship out of low orbit. As of now, completing an orbit at any elevation is a trust me bro thing.
Every one of Elon's gambles has five subsidiary gambles: if starship falls 30% short of expected payload capacity, it no longer takes 15 refueling missions but 25. That's just one example.
That's what you get when one of your software guys told you about agile, and you thought let's build a rocket that way.
You would likely have called it naive to try to develop reusability in the first place. Yes its harder. But they also have a much, much bigger team. They have an experience engine team. Simulation team and so on. And they have the need and the financial positioning.
Re-usability is the holy grail of space flight, if in the current situation SpaceX would not go after it they would be insane.
Its certainty smarter then your idea of an incrementally improved Falcon 9 upgrade.
> On top of that they have to bet that they can scale starship launches to the point where they can economically fly 15 starship refueling missions just to get one starship out of low orbit.
That just nonsense, where are you getting your information from. The 15 missions are for getting something from LEO to the moon, land and go back to Lunar orbit.
> As of now, completing an orbit at any elevation is a trust me bro thing.
No its a 'if you actually thing about it for 2s' then you can trust it thing. They have basically achieved orbital velocity and could have gone into orbit. This is beyond question.
The important and difficult thing is getting the ship to the ground and landing. And they have demonstrated precision landing after orbital speed insertion. They have even done extra hot approach to stress the heat shield even more, and have even left many tiles out to test what happens when tiles are missing.
If they actually did a full orbit or not is completely 100% totally and utterly irrelevant to anybody except a few people who hate Musk for political reasons.
> Every one of Elon's gambles has five subsidiary gambles: if starship falls 30% short of expected payload capacity, it no longer takes 15 refueling missions but 25. That's just one example.
And that only costs them a like 1 billion $ max if they can't do the lunar flights.
Even a 30% less Starship could be useful for Starlink. And worse case the can fly Starship in Falcon 9 mode and drop the upper stage and have fucking insane payload to Orbit.
> That's what you get when one of your software guys told you about agile, and you thought let's build a rocket that way.
You get the largest rocket ever built and the best engine ever built. The largest vehicle ever returned from orbit and so on.
Do you have any actual critic of their approach. Can you actually show that some other approach would have been cheaper? What are you basing that assumption on? Starship has been reasonably cheap and incredibly so given the problem its trying to solve and how much infrastructure they are building.
Why should I trust you rather then, you know the people at SpaceX who have revolutionized the space industry? Have launched and landed more rocket then anybody. Have better data then anymore. Have worked on this problem for a decade, and have changed their design a bunch of time. What expertise do you have in the development of fully reusable launch vehicles?
Refuelling Isn't a requirement for most of the work they plan to do.
SpaceX could easily charge more for timeliness. Its way more important than price per kg for a military customer.
Fake ”criticism” and cheapshots make actual criticism nearly impossible.
The way you hurl stones from a glass house it kinda just sounds like you disagree and are upset.
The stink of endless corruption in the new US of A
Surely is completely unrelated to Musk throwing money behind electing the people who give him these contracts.
What do you want them to do, you magic to launch the sats?
Neutron might get first test this or next year, so literally volume launches might happen after their competitor already exited that segment lol.
Yeah and that is not happened, its just the typical Musk style claim.
SpaceX has always been the lowest bidder and always been paired. Including here in NSSL.
And there's no other launcher. A sensible company seeking profits would match SLS pricing.
Sure, there’s a limited float plus meme stock/hype/etc but still, steady growth which would lead to like a $20 trillion company in a few years?
Since I’m assuming IPO investors are going to be comparing to the last decade’s history of the tech giants and wouldn’t be satisfied with a 1.25x from IPO over 5 years or something…
Or is your argument that the "real" cost of this $1.6B SpaceX / Space Force contract is in fact closer to ~$16B or ~$160B after accounting for tax subsidies and investment fraud?
> People balk at the cost of large government in house projects like the manhattan project, well imagine that cost if the government had to pay contractor rates on that project instead of doing it in house.
If you were actually serious, and not a political shill then you wouldn't pick one random example without anything to compare it to. You are just making assertions based on literally nothing.
And if you knew something about SpaceX and NASA you would know that NASA own internal investigation suggested that actually NASA should be in the business of doing basic things that companies are perfectly good at doing.
The Manhatten project was something large and very new on the cutting edge of science. Launching rockets in the 1960s was that, it isn't anymore. Instead of the government doing everything, allow fair contracting and companies can compete on offering the government a cheap price.
> how these contracts usually are pricing in cost overruns
Yeah I mean governments don't have cost overruns, I mean the great leader said there wouldn't be any, so we know they can't exist.
I'm sure you've heard of trade secrets before
You can charge more or make higher margins at the market clearing price.
I thought everyone has done at least one semester of microeconomics at high school level, but the internet challenges my assumption frequently.
But, like, that's divergent from "This SpaceX contract is pure grift" that OP was not so subtly implying.
> You can never convince me profit is not a cost.
It is a cost, but with the cost you are getting something. And NASA (the US) as it happens literally got the best deal maybe in human history.
The US was literally sucking in space, their rockets were shit. Their human launch was shit. All their major space project were going to utter and complete shit and were literally an intersectional embarrassment. And btw the companies were still making profit, never in its history did NASA not primary work threw independent companies.
Then they bought things from SpaceX and yes SpaceX made some profit. That encouraged the largest ever investment surge into space industry. SpaceX used the profit to build a reusable rocket revolutionizing rockets and the US went from doing like 0% of the global commercial launch to like 80%.
Because that lowered cost many new in space ideas became possible. And US companies have taken that opportunity the best. Where in GEO launches the US was in tough competition against Europe and China. In LEO US is utterly dominated.
In addition to that a whole new crop of rocket launchers were designed. Many of the people designing them only got into the field because of SpaceX.
The location of SpaceX head quarter now sits in the most successful aerospace cluster in the world.
The US went from not making the best engine to making the most and the best engines in the world.
Let alone all the new companies trying everything they can think of. Space based solar to increase sat power. Platinum mining. And so many other things.
The US military profits form that too, cheaper then all global competitors. Allowing it to launch even more. And thanks to all competition in the launch market, some switched to hypersonics. Giving the military hypersonic test platforms they didn't have to develop themselves. Let alone all the crazy startups that pop up because they can find venture money.
Sorry that nobody takes you seriously when you complain about SpaceX making profit on launches when that very profit is what allowed for the US to go from being stagnate in space to being the unquestionable juggernaut all while the government was paying less then they had ever paid in their whole history.
Unless you can explain, how this would have happened, without allowing SpaceX some profit, go ahead.
To expensive homes. Expensive vacations. Expensive cars. Expensive meals. Private jets. Buying a social media website. Etc. All waste. Finery.
But of course they do understand that and the primary nationalized the resources, and have a model where the nationalized company bids for that resource against private companies as well.
That’s like saying “theoretically you could get to space by flapping your wings”—you just need to ignore inconvenient laws of physics. Economics describes forces of the real world, you cannot just wave them away.
The point is that you have to account for those second order effects even in theory. The consequences that arise from those effects isn't some conflict between theory and practice. It's a defect in the theory itself, because the theory ignores relevant variables.
Compensation for the risks taken and opportunity cost lost by doing this instead of something else.
Are you serious? I suggest you re-evaluate your priors because you're spouting things that demonstrate a severe lack of consideration for 1st, 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Once more you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic you're talking about.
You're complaining that c-suite are being "forced" to own equity, while regular employees get the choice of doing so or not?
Come on now. You're just upset and lashing out without considering things.
Touch grass man. Figure out what you actually want, and support policies that actually achieve it, instead of just going off a knee jerk reaction to people you dislike.
Because… is the Falcon launch business profitable? SpaceX has spent massive amounts of money to launch their rockets hundreds of times to bring the cost this low. Because they have economies of scale and can learn from their mistakes at a volume no rocket manufacturer has ever achieved.
So your question should actually be: can NASA build a rocket that can do 18 cargo launches for less than $1.6B? The answer is probably no. Because Falcon 9 isn’t a one-off design, it’s the cheapest launch system ever designed. By a massive margin.
A bigger point here is that, sure, you’re right, there are many late-stage capitalistic businesses which basically only exist to increase profit and cut corners as much as possible, to customer detriment. And probably scam the government out of huge amounts of money.
But SpaceX isn’t a late-stage business like that.
Many launchers in several countries, SpaceX is the cheapest in its sector.
So there's already evidence.
Don't forget NASA has its traditionally built vehicle
SpaceX also has benefits from its volume. So yes, if you buy in bulk and you'll get it cheaper. Pretty sure NASA isn't making its planes either even though it does aeronautics. It doesn't make Satellites even though it has earth observation people.
We've heard accusations SpaceX is getting government subsidies, losing VC money, but they opened the books and their cost advantage is ridiculous.
Don't think NASA is building a vehicle like Falcon 9 for $20 million per launch operationally in ten years.
What I am denying is that you needed to make musk the richest man on earth to achieve this. That you needed to go to ipo. That it needed to give a dime to any initial investors.
All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost.
Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees.
Gwynne Shotwell was incredibly frustrated with the aerospace industry. So frustrated that she thought about leaving the industry. She didn't see any chance the industry and NASA as it existed to make progress.
That's exactly why she left and went to a company that tried to be different and break the mold. And guess what, without the government contracting strategy, such a company could have never arisen and never challenged general wisdom.
> All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost.
You should consider reading Road to Serfdom by Hayek. That explain to some extend why the people who 'would magically fix everything' don't actually end up on top of bureaucratic hierarchies.
Shotwell stomp on peoples necks hard core business attitude would not be considered a positive at JPL and she wouldn't be in that position. Its not that kind of organization.
And Musk insisted on hiring all the people personally. Putting them threw interviews and evaluating them. So the whole idea of 'Shotwell and the exact same people', is delusional. Team building itself is one of the most challenging things for a project. Musk hand picked all the top team leaders, Shotwell, Mueller, Königsman and so on.
Why don't you just argue that if NASA had just had the Falcon 9, then they could launch it for cheap. That's about as reasonable.
She wouldn't have had a team at JPL, let alone the freedom to develop a project like Falcon 1 or 9. The team certainty wouldn't be the same because they wouldn't be out of the box professionals and a bunch of young go getters from universities.
And of course you are ignoring that Musk was the one that pushed for reputability at all costs. Basically everybody in the industry said he was wrong and it was a dumb idea. Specially inside NASA and Arianespace.
Also its pretty bold to talk about JPL when the just monumentally fucked up bigger then they ever have in their history with Mars Sample return. A project so catastrophically managed that literally every single person would have been fired if they were at SpaceX. Just as Musk did with the whole Starlink leadership team. But again, there is a reason this isn't happening at JPL.
So in summary:
- JPL would never get to money to do such a project for many reasons
- JPL would never put Shotwell as her focus was business development (let alone Musk)
- Shotwell wouldn't have had the vision that Musk has (as she herself said, her focus when talking to Musk was making sure that the rocket being developed was something she could sell)
- JPL wouldn't ever have run the project the way SpaceX had because they have process around how to do things
- JPL wouldn't ever have hired the same group of engineers because of the way the do hiring.
- JPL couldn't ever run procurement and supplier relation the way SpaceX did because of government regulations about contracting
So no, Shotwell and the same team at JPL wouldn't have created Falcon 9. Let alone would such a team ever have existed.
You are literally just writing fan fiction.
> Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees.
You are seeing the forest and missing that its growing from the earth.
She's more well compensated than the joke millions per year you think she makes.
Something she won't make at JPL.
At ISRO, the pay is relatively good and engineers are also paid in perks and reputation (house staff, free housing, chauffeurs, utilities) but they are leaving. The problem is so serious the government has banned them from quitting.
One of SpaceX cost advantages is from reusability, it took a while for SpaceX to convince (using lawsuits) NASA and the DoD to allow them carry serious payloads. Took even longer to convince them to use reused equipment. Now it's where everyone is going.
Now in 2026, the naysayers are convinced that it was not only something NASA would have done, but they want to pretend they were believers back in the Obama one era (I wasn't). SpaceX spent more than double on reusability than on Falcon 9. Spent more on Starlink development than Falcon 9. But someone here wants me to believe that that would have been possible in government. When other countries and companies are doing what SpaceX is doing (usually starting after SpaceX has proven it works)
- JPL would never put Shotwell as her focus was business development (let alone Musk)
- Shotwell wouldn't have had the vision that Musk has (as she herself said, her focus when talking to Musk was making sure that the rocket being developed was something she could sell)
- JPL wouldn't ever have run the project the way SpaceX had because they have process around how to do things
- JPL wouldn't ever have hired the same group of engineers because of the way the do hiring.
- JPL couldn't ever run procurement and supplier relation the way SpaceX did because of government regulations about contracting
You are right on all this and I am not denying it, but the facts remain that doing things at cost is cheaper than doing things for profit. That is what I am getting at. People are getting hung up on specifics that frankly don't really matter to the underlying point that profitability is a cost center.
i.e even though it had been proven it was possible, it was still hard to do
NASA own analysis suggest that Falcon 9 development (just the initial nonreusable) version would have cost 10x as much (and that is with their estimation methods that often are wrong by 2-3x).
Do you also think NASA should build its own cars and planes to move around? Should they make their own spoons too?
What is your evidence that NASA could make things cheaper, or that they would be cheaper if NASA had tried to do it themselves.
We don't even have to base it on the study NASA did, they did develop the Ares 1 rocket during the same time when SpaceX developed Falcon 9. And NASA rocket cost many times what Falcon 9 cost and had little prospect of becoming much cheaper anytime soon and when canceled wasn't finish developing despite being based on existing well understood technology. In fact, only a complete redevelopment of the rocket from the ground up had any chance to ever match Falcon 9.
So we have both a theoretical study and a practical example that SpaceX Falcon 9 is vastly cheaper by an almost unimaginable large amount. And that is even before SpaceX on its own dime and on its own investment developed re-usability. And that made things even cheaper.
So can you please outline a realistic history where either now or in the next 20 years NASA would be cheaper then Falcon 9. Please assume the same amount of funding for the relevant project.
If you want to make the argument that somehow in 2050 it would be cheaper, I don't think you will win many people over with that logic.