SpaceX Announces pricing for Cargo to Moon and Mars

[meekGee]

You can reuse Mars ships 5-10 times if you wanted to. There is also the ability to do aggregation.

Maybe you could, but why?

So you could ship (to Mars) the process tankage and batteries and pumps and plumbing and PV and electronics, again, in the next window?

They're all already there, post rocket equation, post risk, sitting exactly where you want then, and now you want to send them all back? Using, no less, precious ISRU propellant?

Sending the ships back never made sense, and it was just a matter of time before that sunk in.  It may have been a holdover since the days of fiber-composite ships, but IMO even then it was misguided.

[Robotbeat]

If it is the bottleneck for costs and you’ve solved the other problems, then do it.

The point of Mars is to get costs low enough that it is worth sending ships back.

“The floor on costs is such and such because I assume one-way trips for the ships.”

“What if you get refueling costs low enough to be worth sending ships back?”

*angry noises* “I said it’s a floor on costs!”

[Action]

That's entirely wrong if you have the capacity to manufacture another ship.

You're assuming there are only a capped number of ships  and an uncapped Cis-lunar service market.

No, I'm assuming that we won't saturate demand in cislunar space for some time, so there'll be demand for the marginal Starship, and it will be able to be used for approximately 1000x times as many flights if you keep it in the vicinity of Earth.

You face a choice with the marginal ship: put it to work in the cislunar market, where it will be heavily utilized over many flights, or Mars, where you have to make all that money on the one flight.

I think Twark_Main is guessing correctly about the plan.

[meekGee]

That's entirely wrong if you have the capacity to manufacture another ship.

You're assuming there are only a capped number of ships  and an uncapped Cis-lunar service market.

No, I'm assuming that we won't saturate demand in cislunar space for some time, so there'll be demand for the marginal Starship, and it will be able to be used for approximately 1000x times as many flights if you keep it in the vicinity of Earth.

You face a choice with the marginal ship: put it to work in the cislunar market, where it will be heavily utilized over many flights, or Mars, where you have to make all that money on the one flight.

I think Twark_Main is guessing correctly about the plan.

I will bet you that a very small fleet will service whatever reusable cislunar activity there is (probably dominated by Starlink) and most of the output of the factories will head to Mars.

Start that prediction in 2028, and it'll become overwhelming in 2030.   2026 is just a maybe-possible one-off Mars campaign, and so is the HLS flight.

[meekGee]

If it is the bottleneck for costs and you’ve solved the other problems, then do it.

The point of Mars is to get costs low enough that it is worth sending ships back.

“The floor on costs is such and such because I assume one-way trips for the ships.”

“What if you get refueling costs low enough to be worth sending ships back?”

*angry noises* “I said it’s a floor on costs!”

Doesn't matter how cheap - the same factor will apply to getting the ship back for another run.

Mars transport will have a cost to it, and a landed ship is almost 100% needed, not just as materials but as completed fabricated components.

The time ship recovery will start making sense is when Mars stops being a growing colony and flights between Earth and Mars become symmetrical.

And at that point, it won't be Starships anymore.

[Action]

I will bet you that a very small fleet will service whatever reusable cislunar activity there is (probably dominated by Starlink) and most of the output of the factories will head to Mars.

You are assuming (or concluding, I don't know...) that the near-to-earth market is, and will remain, tiny.  I don't agree with that.

[Action]

The time ship recovery will start making sense is when Mars stops being a growing colony and flights between Earth and Mars become symmetrical.

And at that point, it won't be Starships anymore.

This, however, I do agree with.

[meekGee]

I will bet you that a very small fleet will service whatever reusable cislunar activity there is (probably dominated by Starlink) and most of the output of the factories will head to Mars.

You are assuming (or concluding, I don't know...) that the near-to-earth market is, and will remain, tiny.  I don't agree with that.

I'm assuming that the production capacity of Starships will outstrip it by a wide margin, but even a narrow margin will suffice to null-out that cost calculation.

How many ships do you think will be needed for non-starlink non-Mars operations? 

[Action]

I will bet you that a very small fleet will service whatever reusable cislunar activity there is (probably dominated by Starlink) and most of the output of the factories will head to Mars.

You are assuming (or concluding, I don't know...) that the near-to-earth market is, and will remain, tiny.  I don't agree with that.

I'm assuming that the production capacity of Starships will outstrip it by a wide margin, but even a narrow margin will suffice to null-out that cost calculation.

Thank you for clarifying. I understand your assumption.  I disagree with it, but I understand it.

But if you are correct and there are just way more Starships than we know what to do with, whatever your price is for sending them to Mars, your price for using them in the vicinity of Earth is going to be 0.01% of that number.  You can still compare how abundent they are in the two applications.  One is 1000x the other.

What makes sense if you try to back into equal prices is that the Mars Starships are planned to be fully depreciated EOL vehicles.

[Vultur]

A few Ships need to return, or at least be capable of return, just so that people have the option of returning to Earth.

However, I agree that for quite a while return to Earth won't be the norm for Starships sent to Mars. (And when it becomes more two-way, the vehicle may not be called Starship anymore.)

It's probably not quite a matter of reusing the Ship vs not reusing it, though. It probably gets reused either way - if not for more flights, then as part of the settlement structure on Mars. The first Mars habs will be the first crew Ships, and early cargo Ships' tankage will likely be part of the ISRU setup, etc.


--

The relatively low price of Mars vs Moon may also be because SpaceX plans to send tons of stuff to Mars anyway, whereas the Moon activities are strictly external customer driven. So a Mars bound payload can just ride along on a flight that is already happening (unless the payload is large enough to require a whole Ship) but a Moon one perhaps not.

[Action]

Additionally, payload aggregation (think like large modules of 200t each, launched individually to LEO and then aggregated together) means you can push like 2000t to Mars on a single Starship, then bring the payloads down one at a time with a Starship based in Mars orbit. (Refueling each time.)

Pusher-Catcher schemes like this are an obvious extention of the Starship idea that do much better on ship utlization, without requiring a ton of new types of vehicles.  At least, once you've got the ability to maintain and operate a small fleet of Catcher Starships on Mars, anyway.

Edit: Spelling.

[meekGee]

A few Ships need to return, or at least be capable of return, just so that people have the option of returning to Earth.

However, I agree that for quite a while return to Earth won't be the norm for Starships sent to Mars. (And when it becomes more two-way, the vehicle may not be called Starship anymore.)

It's probably not quite a matter of reusing the Ship vs not reusing it, though. It probably gets reused either way - if not for more flights, then as part of the settlement structure on Mars. The first Mars habs will be the first crew Ships, and early cargo Ships' tankage will likely be part of the ISRU setup, etc.


--

The relatively low price of Mars vs Moon may also be because SpaceX plans to send tons of stuff to Mars anyway, whereas the Moon activities are strictly external customer driven. So a Mars bound payload can just ride along on a flight that is already happening (unless the payload is large enough to require a whole Ship) but a Moon one perhaps not.

Yup, though I get the sense that tankage will always be required - it's linear to the population of the colony, but also to the level of chemical industry happening.

Initially it's just for water, oxygen, and Methane, but later it is for all feed stock gasses derived from Methane, for various mineral-eater solutions, etc.

One day they'll be welding tanks on Mars, but as long as they're just falling from the sky - they'll always be required.

And samemfor batteries.

So "initially" IMO easily covers 50 years.

[Robotbeat]

If it is the bottleneck for costs and you’ve solved the other problems, then do it.

The point of Mars is to get costs low enough that it is worth sending ships back.

“The floor on costs is such and such because I assume one-way trips for the ships.”

“What if you get refueling costs low enough to be worth sending ships back?”

*angry noises* “I said it’s a floor on costs!”

Doesn't matter how cheap - the same factor will apply to getting the ship back for another run.

Mars transport will have a cost to it, and a landed ship is almost 100% needed, not just as materials but as completed fabricated components.

The time ship recovery will start making sense is when Mars stops being a growing colony and flights between Earth and Mars become symmetrical.

And at that point, it won't be Starships anymore.

The scrap value of a ship is just not that high. If your transport costs are $10,000-100,000/kg to the surface as they are right now, then sure, it’s definitely not worth sending the ship back. Let’s say the ship has a dry mass of 100t and a cost of $100M. So per kg dry mass, that’s $1000/kg. Plus you have costs of all the equipment you’re using for ISRU. It doesn’t pencil. Even at $1000/kg to Mars transport cost, it’s marginal.

But at $100/kg or so, the ship dry mass is valuable enough to send back. AND the scrap value of the ship stops being worth as much either, as you can get completed goods instead. (BTW, if you just care about metal scrap value, you can shoot stainless steel to Mars without a lander.)

So yes, it takes a while for it to be worth sending ships back, but not forever.

If
1) you can get the cost down to around $100/kg to Mars.
And
2) you can get the mass payback time for ISRU equipment low enough (certainly less than 12 months… let’s say at least 1000t of prop, 200t of which is methane at 55% efficiency production meaning 100MJ/kgCH4, 20TJ of electricity, so in 12 months that’s 635kWe baseload, or 64t at 10We/kg…)

Then it’s worthwhile. Otherwise it isn’t or it’s marginal.

[Robotbeat]

We can spreadsheet this.

[meekGee]

If it is the bottleneck for costs and you’ve solved the other problems, then do it.

The point of Mars is to get costs low enough that it is worth sending ships back.

“The floor on costs is such and such because I assume one-way trips for the ships.”

“What if you get refueling costs low enough to be worth sending ships back?”

*angry noises* “I said it’s a floor on costs!”

Doesn't matter how cheap - the same factor will apply to getting the ship back for another run.

Mars transport will have a cost to it, and a landed ship is almost 100% needed, not just as materials but as completed fabricated components.

The time ship recovery will start making sense is when Mars stops being a growing colony and flights between Earth and Mars become symmetrical.

And at that point, it won't be Starships anymore.

The scrap value of a ship is just not that high. If your transport costs are $10,000-100,000/kg to the surface as they are right now, then sure, it’s definitely not worth sending the ship back. Let’s say the ship has a dry mass of 100t and a cost of $100M. So per kg dry mass, that’s $1000/kg. Plus you have costs of all the equipment you’re using for ISRU. It doesn’t pencil. Even at $1000/kg to Mars transport cost, it’s marginal.

But at $100/kg or so, the ship dry mass is valuable enough to send back. AND the scrap value of the ship stops being worth as much either, as you can get completed goods instead. (BTW, if you just care about metal scrap value, you can shoot stainless steel to Mars without a lander.)

So yes, it takes a while for it to be worth sending ships back, but not forever.

If
1) you can get the cost down to around $100/kg to Mars.
And
2) you can get the mass payback time for ISRU equipment low enough (certainly less than 12 months… let’s say at least 1000t of prop, 200t of which is methane at 55% efficiency production meaning 100MJ/kgCH4, 20TJ of electricity, so in 12 months that’s 635kWe baseload, or 64t at 10We/kg…)

Then it’s worthwhile. Otherwise it isn’t or it’s marginal.

What scrap value?

You have 9m stainless tanks built to a high standard - that right there is invaluable on Mars.

You have the best pumps, batteries, plumbing - all stuff that is so difficult to manufacture, and here you have it, ready to go, already transported and landed safely.

Surface process plant equipment will be designed around these components, making them possible easily a decade earlier than they would have otherwise been.

And I'm not even counting the fly-back propellant, that has so many other uses on the surface.

Not only is it not scrap value, it is worth more on Mars than it is on Earth.  You're proposing to ship it back to Earth, just in order to make it worrh less.

Instead of worrying about losing the value of the ship by stranding it on Mars, think of it as getting transport of high-mass essential components - for free.

[Robotbeat]

I assume it’s worth about $1000/kg on Earth, as that is roughly its manufacturing cost.

It’s not worth more than that on Mars unless the cost of cargo to Mars is higher than $1000/kg. Batteries and motors and tanks don’t cost $1000/kg, nor is repurposing without major losses.

[meekGee]

I assume it’s worth about $1000/kg on Earth, as that is roughly its manufacturing cost.

It’s not worth more than that on Mars unless the cost of cargo to Mars is higher than $1000/kg. Batteries and motors and tanks don’t cost $1000/kg, nor is repurposing without major losses.

.. plus, the shipping cost on yhe back to Earth leg, using ISRU propellant.  That's how much cheaper it has to be.

Also, how will you transport large process tanks to Mars? Or do you want to weld them there from stainless steel coils?  Basically have a tank factory there early on?

Remember you'll need easily as many tanks as there are ships, if you want to be able to store quantities compatible with fly-back and a couple of years' worth of survival consumables.

[Coastal Ron]

A few Ships need to return, or at least be capable of return, just so that people have the option of returning to Earth.

However, I agree that for quite a while return to Earth won't be the norm for Starships sent to Mars. (And when it becomes more two-way, the vehicle may not be called Starship anymore.)

It's probably not quite a matter of reusing the Ship vs not reusing it, though. It probably gets reused either way - if not for more flights, then as part of the settlement structure on Mars. The first Mars habs will be the first crew Ships, and early cargo Ships' tankage will likely be part of the ISRU setup, etc.

We need to take into account that the likely highest priority for Starships that first go to Mars will be to certify them for carrying humans to Mars. And by "certify" I mean by SpaceX in the very least (who else is not important for now). What that means is that SpaceX is likely to prioritize returning as many ships as possible from Mars so that they validate Starship is ready to SAFELY send people to Mars and allow them to SAFELY return to Earth.

After that is done, then sure, some ships sent will be built specifically to be scrapped in place, or built specifically to perform one or more tasks after landing (i.e. not ripped apart, just used in place).

Personally I think containerized cargo will be more valuable, and that Musk ramping up to hundreds of flights per synod will require the return of most of the ships sent in the previous synod. But once a ship has reached the end of its operational life, then it would be a lot of sense to "decommission" on Mars instead of on Earth. So from that standpoint, I think most of the ships that end up on Mars to be recycled will come from ships that were at the end of their operational life.

[xvel]

The return of the first humans from Mars was never part of the plan

[meekGee]

The return of the first humans from Mars was never part of the plan

Exactly.

The first crews are signing up for "fail forward".  Until return is made possible, they depend on more resupply.

Return will become possible once ISRU has been activated and been running long enough  and possibly once one empty ship successfully returned unmanned.  Probably 6 years minimum.

If I was younger I'd sign up.