Elon Musk says the Long term cost of a single Starship launch can reach $2 million. The reusable payload of 200 tonnes would mean $10 per kilogram for launch cost. If engines were further improved to 250 tons of reusable payload the cost to orbit would be $8 per kilogram.
Nextbigfuture notes that sending only the upper stage point to point around the Earth would be $2 per kilogram. The costs for SpaceX Starship launch and payloads matches what I wrote 6 days ago on April 1, 2024.
Falcon 9 is estimated to be about $1000/kg, and before SpaceX cost was about $10,000/kg
Starlink now has 2.7 million customers and is funding SpaceX and Starship operations.
Moon Starships will return to Earth orbit but will not reenter Earth atmosphere or land on Earth, and thus will not need fins or heat shield. This would increase the payload that the Lunar Starships can take.
Elon’s plans for Mars involve sending about one thousand Starships at each launch window to Mars.
There will be two Mechazilla launch towers at Starbase Texas, primarily for test launches, and two more at Canaveral, primarily for operational launches. 4 towers should be complete by middle of 2025.
Most Starships that land on Mars will be disassembled so that the materials can be used on Mars.
Elon said the Mars colony might use nuclear power.
Landing area on Mars will be roughly 40 degrees latitude, and colony will be well below sea level as these elevations have thicker atmosphere which helps with landing and other benefits. These locations are also closer to key resources.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
$10/kg to space makes space based solar power inevitable near term.
The first space based solar power applications might be military. Lethal focused microwaves targeting at the speed of light beats the heck out of drone strikes or assassinations by special forces.
A few megawatts of deployments would be enough to change the way wars are fought. Development is likely already under way.
The first nation to deploy space solar weapons could also be the last, using the GEO high ground to prevent others from deploying similar capabilities.
I know it’s more than just simple math, but for around $3K I can get a round trip premium select ticket from the East coast US to Asia. You figure I’m just a tad under 100 kilos, but with luggage etc probably 120 Kilos, I assume the $10 per kilo is one way, and doesn’t include life support, but even $30 per kilo to account for that ($3600 round trip) and space tourism is not only possible but competitively priced.
1,000 ships bound for Mars means 16,000 launches to fuel them for the trip. Steady state means 17h/2/365 or 23 launches/day for 2 years. It’s going to be awhile.
at a launch COST of $2 dollars, if SpaceX get’s 100% profit, by charging $4 per kg, an average ticket price point to point for a person (let’s consider average weight of 70kg, halfway between male and female weight and halfway between USA (80kg average) and Asia (60kg average), would be $280 US dollars. To anywhere on the planet in less than 1 hour of FLIGHT time (vomit due to weightlessness not included)
Seems reasonable.
At $10 dollars, with SpaceX getting 100%, it would be U$1400 dollars to go to orbit.
For comparison, a first class ticket from New York to Paris is around $3000 dollars.
Of course, a first class ticket at Starship, with the best food and wine, etc, considering the amount of travel time (remember, docking to a space station after getting to orbit will usually take several hours) will run on 10s of thousands of dollars.
It’s still reasonable for big corporations , And the cheaper passages are still reasonable for even smaller companies to send personnel to space.
While a family of 4 going to the Moon will still be out of reach for most families even in the richest countries, it is still a GIANT LEAP in access to space that brings a sci-fi future like we always imagined closer than ever.
(I am sure the 2001 PanAm flight with that single government passenger cost much more per kg than Starship)
Can we have some of those nuclear plants bound for Mars here?
Physics-based nuclear energy should have similar cost reduction opportunities as rockets have. 90% cheaper nuclear should be possible in places with physics-based regulations.
When $10/kg to space becomes a reality, does space solar or unregulated space nuclear energy win?
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/solar-radiation-in-space
Solar energy at Mars is almost 3 times less than Earth. Jupiter it is 26 times less per square meter.
That’s true, but getting nuclear materials, let alone nuclear reactors to Mars will be very expensive (initially at least). Does Mars even have uranium? If it has other heavy metals I would think so, but honestly I have no idea. You have to know what the “land has’, before you can live off it. Solar cells are a very simple technology, becoming more effective almost every day. And we know Mars has the raw materials to make them.
So let us start with what we know and have. So it takes more solar cells on Mars to generate the same amount of power then on Earth. So sue me, or Elon Musk…
Perhaps there is no uranium on Mars..but the materials for PV panels are not there either.
Modern Nuclear 2.0 with nuclear modular batteries is one option (if we can develop thermoelectric efficiencies)
Mars gets hit by meteors just like Earth. Statistically, there will be some Uranium on Mars by finding the remains of Meteors with Uranium. Why would you assume that a planet with 11% of the Earth’s mass would not have materials for PV panels. The planets formed at the same time from the same cloud of stuff. Why would all of the PV materials be separated out from what becomes Mars versus what becomes the Earth. This makes no sense based upon our knowledge of the formation of the solar system.
Mars has a lot more deuterium than Earth, so heavy-water natural uranium reactors are much easier to do. If they can secure uranium resources on Mars, then a lot else follows.
At Mars orbit you’d just use thin film mirrors to concentrate the light. Mars synchronous orbit is much lower than Earth synchronous orbit, which is a big advantage for SPS. Given those dust storms, you probably don’t want to rely on ground level solar power on Mars, it would be subject to long periods of seriously reduced output.
Nuclear on the ground, and solar in space, would be a reliable mix.
I agree. I love it when someone makes sense that “connects the dots” so sweetly. Thank you brother.