How Will SpaceX Bring the Cost to Space Down to $10 per Kilogram from Over $1000 per Kilogram?

PayloadSpace estimates the costs of SpaceX Starship now and in a few years. Their estimate is a $90 million build cost now and a future build cost of $20 million. SpaceX would likely charge customers twice those amounts. Those are estimates of internal costs.

In a cost per kilogram of payload basis, a single use Super Heavy Starship can bring the cost down nearly ten times to about $150 per kilogram. However, high reuse of the Super Heavy Starship will bring the cost down to $10-20 per kilogram.

The upper stage Starship will have a dry mass of about 100 to 130 tons. The SpaceX Super Heavy Booster will have a dry mass of about 160-200 tons. The tanks will weigh 80 metric tons (180,000 lb), and the interstage will weigh 20 metric tons (44,000 lb). Let us assume Starship dry mass is 120 tons and the booster is 180 tons. This is a changing figure because SpaceX will make a version 3 that is 20% longer. SpaceX is making changes all the time.

The steel used as the main construction material is about $5 per kilogram. The 300 tons for the Super Heavy Booster and the Starship would be $1.5 million for the steel.

The main cost is the Raptor engines and the labor for each Starship. The other main cost are the avionics, electronics and heat shield tiles.

The Raptor engines are at about $1 million each now. This is $39 million of the $90 million cost estimate.

SpaceX has a factory for Raptor engines that can be ramped to a production capacity of 4000 engines per year. SpaceX is making about three hundred Merlin engines (150 engines for expended second stage of Falcon 9 and some new Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavies). SpaceX is making a few hundred Raptor engines for the Starship testing and operations in 2024.

Once SpaceX is able to successfully fly and recover the upper and lower stage of Starship, then they will be on track to have reusable costs that are 20% of less than the build cost.

The SpaceX Falcon 9 has a build cost of about $30 million but SpaceX sells rides for about $60 million. The booster stage of the Falcon 9 is about 70% of the cost and those have been reused 10-20 times. The most reused Falcon 9 boosters are up to about 20 reuses. SpaceX is doing some maintenance to get certified for 40 reuses and the goal of 100 reuses is likely. The payload fairings are recovered and reused. Those were about 10% of the cost and it seems like 20-100 reuses are possible for the fairings. The SpaceX Falcon 9 costs cannot get below about 30-40% of the build costs because of the expended second stage.

The SpaceX Starship should follow the Falcon 9 path to 20 to 100 reuses or more. This will be for 100% of the vehicles.

The first flight of SpaceX Starship would be for 100% of the cost. The initial reuse costs after a fully successful flights would be 10% of the costs. There would be more inspection, safety and maintenance checks. This would then head to about $300000 to $2 million for fuel and a 3 million or so for operations and long term maintenance. Certain fuel and operation costs would not reduce based upon the initial cost of the Starship. They would decline based upon improving efficiency with higher launch cadence. Fuel costs would reach a minimum until SpaceX started producing their own fuel using solar power and other systems.

A SpaceX Super Heavy Starship that cost $90 million to build in 2024 that is successfully flown five times over 2024-2025 would have about $50 million in costs over five flights. The average per flight costs would be $28 million per flight. The original build cost would be $18 million cost per five flights. This would be $90 per kilogram for 200 ton payloads.

A SpaceX Super Heavy Starship that cost $50 million to build in 2025 that is successfully flown ten times over 2025-2026 would have about $70 million in costs over ten flights. The average per flight costs would be about $12 million per flight. The original build cost would be $5 million cost per ten flights. This would be $25 per kilogram for 200 ton payloads.

SpaceX mass producing engines for $250,000 each would need about $10 million for 39 or 40 engines for the Booster and Starship. Mass production of a hundred to four hundred Starships per year and twenty to forty boosters could have the fixed production costs spread over 40 times the production volume.

A SpaceX Super Heavy Starship that cost $20 million to build in 2027 that is successfully flown 100 times over 2027-2028 would have about $200 million in costs over ten flights. The average per flight costs would be about $2.2 million per flight. The original build cost would be $0.2 million cost per one hundred flights. IF the reusable mode had 220 tons of capacity then the payload cost would be $10 per kilogram.

SpaceX plans to make the Starship 20% longer and improve the engines. The payload capacity could increase to 200-250 tons in reusable mode. An expended Future Starship would have a payload of about 300 tons. The build cost of a future Starship would be about $2-5 million. If the Future Starship cost $2 million and the fuel and operations cost $2 million then the payload cost even in expended mode would be $15 per kilogram.

The main factor in reducing future payload costs would be reducing fuel, operations and maintenance costs.

11 thoughts on “How Will SpaceX Bring the Cost to Space Down to $10 per Kilogram from Over $1000 per Kilogram?”

  1. For $10 per kilo, I could afford to pay for my fat ass to go to space. Cheap enough for space tourism to be practical. ?

  2. Don’t you think this is merely speculation until the vechicle actually works? Only one Starship has landed successfully- and that was on fire for about an hour afterwards!

  3. Do you think anyone has started to work on the Starship for intercontinental human transport? The idea has been floated on NextBigFuture before. But, I wonder, has Elon himself also proposed a superior alternative (as he did with cheaper underground human transport for the Boring Company) of Starship vs. airplanes?

    As I recall, he let a host of other people research underground vacuum tunnels for high-speed human transport before ultimately deciding to build fairly inexpensive underground tunnels and using Tesla vehicles for transport.

    I wonder if there is a secret project going on somewhere…

    • Starship for intercontinental is a roadmap idea. I doubt much if any serious engineering work is being done on it. The platform will be justified based on cargo flights to orbit. Suborbital cargo flights are less likely but potentially valuable in certain situations. Suborbital passenger flights even less likely.

      Passenger flights are a challenge because of:
      1) noise/siting of launch sites. Launch sites are now and will always be loud. Thus they need to be far from highly inhabited area/cities. Also, launches tend to have to be over unpopulated areas for safety in the even of failures causing debris to fall on the launch range. Usually over open ocean, or in Kazakhstan over empty desert.
      2) Comfort. Launch is always going to be a high-g affair. I doubt most business travelers would prefer to subject themselves to these g-loads rather than a business class intercontinental flight.
      3) Safety. It is hard to believe starship can approach the level of safety of passenger airliners. Accident rates/deaths will be (likely quite a few) orders of magnitude higher than air travel. That kind of dulls customer appetite to save 10-20 hours on a flight.

    • I feel like the Starship earth-to-earth anywhere in 30 minutes marketing is mainly done by SpaceX to open the eyes of the generals of this world…

      Basically, a starship is a fantastic weapon. Hundreds of starships in orbit, waiting until a command is given… is an extremely powerful weapon.

  4. I think we’re approaching the point at which the NEXT Musk should be starting work on a launch loop. Because Musk is starting to create the amount of traffic necessary to make that capital investment worthwhile.

    The energy investment necessary to put a kilogram into LEO is about 9.7kwh. That puts the energy cost to orbit, at 100% efficiency and no capitol costs, at about $1.85 per kg. Rockets are NOT terribly energy efficient, so they’re never going to approach that.

    But elevators supported by dynamic structures can.

  5. A Starship that can sustain humans will cost significantly more than $20 million. The cargo variants are more forgiving and cheaper.

    Even if it costs 5x more it will be on the order of 10x more expensive to go to LEO than cross country. Quite the win.

    • If Starships are that cheap to build, it makes a lot of sense to customize them for specific purposes and deploy them rather than either expending or reusing them. Space Station modules, Lunar base modules, Mars settlement modules, Exploration robotic ships, etc.

  6. For $10 per kilo, I could afford to pay for my fat ass to go to space. Cheap enough for space tourism to be practical. cheap enough for a lot of space industry to be practical.

Comments are closed.