Honestly, I doubt that Neutron is going to beat F9R RTLS in per launch costs, never mind $/kg…at least not for several years. F9 operationally is a well oiled machine at this point, and will only be even more so when Neutron flies and they have another 100+ launches under their belt. They will get business for being close and “not SpaceX” but they really need to go full reuse ASAP. If they do, they could certainly carve out a strong niche, and build from there.
I don’t think the manufacturing cost of a neutron upper stage will be much different than an F9 upper stage. I would guess also that a neutron booster will cost more (perhaps 2x or more) than a F9 first stage.
Lets start with basic economics a dedicated 8t RLV is going be cheaper than fully reuseable 150 RLV. Both companies labour costs per employee will be similar and both have access to same industry tools.
There is no way 30 x 250t powered booster is going to be cheaper to build and operate than 7x100t powered booster. Build costs will be relative, that includes launch infrastucture. I don't believe Neutron booster will be 20th cost to operate but 5-10 is quite realistic.
When in comes to operating costs accounting always factors in return on initial investment. $5B development of RLV is going need x10 more money per launch than $500m for smaller RLV, assume both have same number of missions per year. NB not x10 launch cost but x10 money from launch cost to payback investment.I going assume very conservative 10% a year which is $500m(SS) and $50m(Neutron) amortised over X launches are year. For 20 launches that is additional $25 & $2.5M respectively per launch which is added to other launch costs.
Build cost of boosters have to be amortise over X launches assume 100 launch live per booster that is $1m launch for $100m booster. Neutron should be x5-10 cheaper.
Refurbishment between launches, this is replacement engines and heatshields etc every so many missions. SpaceX has head start here with experienced gain from F9R, RL should learn a lot when they start reusing Electron.
Neutron is using cheap expendable US with known build cost, RL are experienced enough with Electron that there shouldn't be any surprises here. SS is using a reuseable US, this is big unknown and totally new territory for Spacex with Shuttle being the only other reuseable US that has experienced same reentry conditions. There are lot lessons SpaceX will take from Shuttle but until Spacex recover an few SS they won't know operating costs. I'm going saying operating costs for both US are same of course one is lifting x20 mass. SS's $/kg to LEO will be far cheaper than Neutron question is how much x3, x5, x10, x20?.
My guess is Neutron will be at less 5th cost of SS to launch.
Neutron:
Second stage cost: $8 million/launch
First stage cost: $60 million / 15 launches = $4 million/launch
Propellant cost: $200k/launch
Range costs: $2 million/launch
Pad infrastructure costs: $2 million/launch
First stage refurbishment: $500k/launch
Minimum gross margin: 20%
Total: $20.9 million per launch
Starship:
Second stage cost: $75 million / 20 launches = $3.75 million/launch
First stage cost: $125 million / 75 launches = $1.67 million/launch
Propellant cost: $1 million /launch
Range costs: $2 million/launch
Pad infrastructure costs: $4 million/launch
Second stage refurbishment: $1 million/launch
First stage refurbishment: $500k/launch
Minimum gross margin: 20%
Total: $17.4 million per launch
To give Neutron a 15-flight lifespan, and SH a 75-flight one, seems a little bit unfair, no? Or is that the nature of CF vs S/S?
Secondly, and related, giving each stage the same refurb cost again seems a bit unfair on Neutron. 7 simple GG engines vs 30 FFSC ones?
Economies of scale are a major differentiator. Elon genuinely wants to launch Starship 1000 times a year. Neutron will be lucky to launch 50 times a year.
Seems to me just because that's the ambition doesn't at all suggest it's realistic. There's no existing payloads or any other activity, not even starlink, that can support that. So in its way I think it's rather more speculative than anything RL wants to do.
Seems to me just because that's the ambition doesn't at all suggest it's realistic. There's no existing payloads or any other activity, not even starlink, that can support that. So in its way I think it's rather more speculative than anything RL wants to do.1000 launches a year probably won't happen until they actively start building a city on Mars.
But I think 100 launches per year likely isn't that far off, I would guess around 2025-2027. They could do 10 launches for Starlink, 15 launches for HLS (mostly tankers), maybe 30 commercial satellite launches, 20 tourist flights ($500k for a week in orbit would be popular) and 25 launches for Mars (again, mostly tankers). I don't think this is too far out there.
And the infrastructure for Neutron likely won't be trivial. You would really have to do the payload integration indoors, as the alternative is to have sea gulls shit all over the payload. That means you need a 50-ish meter high bay. We'll see whether the high bay will move to the rocket or whether the rocket will move to the high bay, and then back to the pad.
20 launches per year both LVs is realistic starting point for cost comparsions. F9R is only doing around 25 at present with majority of that being Starlink. Neutron could reach that if they are deploying Kuiper constellation.
Until we know differently assume both Neutron and SH have same life eg 100 missions. With refurbishment costs relative to their size and engine count.
20 launches per year both LVs is realistic starting point for cost comparsions. F9R is only doing around 25 at present with majority of that being Starlink. Neutron could reach that if they are deploying Kuiper constellation.
Until we know differently assume both Neutron and SH have same life eg 100 missions. With refurbishment costs relative to their size and engine count.
Why should we assume any of these things?
Starship is already ahead of Neutron by several years…they aren’t at the same level of development. It will probably fly in a couple months. Raptor exists and has flown test prototypes several times. There is an actual rocket undergoing testing right now.
Neutron probably won’t fly until 2025. That’s a decade after SpaceX landed its first booster! (Time flies!) It’ll probably be at least 2028-9 until they get it where Falcon 9 is today if they execute perfectly. Starship will probably be flying 20+ times a year before a physical Neutron even exists.
A lot of people have unrealistic expectations TBH. I like Neutron and I am rooting for them, but I think people underestimate how far ahead SpaceX is. It will take a long time for another organization to equal the institutional knowledge base they have in engineering, operations, and manufacturing. SpaceX has already been iterating things for years that RL hasn’t even done once yet.
And honestly, after they fly it, they need to keep the throttle going and make it fully reusable ASAP. Throwing away a likely $10m upper stage will doom the mathematics.
20 launches per year both LVs is realistic starting point for cost comparsions. F9R is only doing around 25 at present with majority of that being Starlink. Neutron could reach that if they are deploying Kuiper constellation.
Until we know differently assume both Neutron and SH have same life eg 100 missions. With refurbishment costs relative to their size and engine count.
Why should we assume any of these things?
Starship is already ahead of Neutron by several years…they aren’t at the same level of development. It will probably fly in a couple months. Raptor exists and has flown test prototypes several times. There is an actual rocket undergoing testing right now.
Neutron probably won’t fly until 2025. That’s a decade after SpaceX landed its first booster! (Time flies!) It’ll probably be at least 2028-9 until they get it where Falcon 9 is today if they execute perfectly. Starship will probably be flying 20+ times a year before a physical Neutron even exists.
A lot of people have unrealistic expectations TBH. I like Neutron and I am rooting for them, but I think people underestimate how far ahead SpaceX is. It will take a long time for another organization to equal the institutional knowledge base they have in engineering, operations, and manufacturing. SpaceX has already been iterating things for years that RL hasn’t even done once yet.
And honestly, after they fly it, they need to keep the throttle going and make it fully reusable ASAP. Throwing away a likely $10m upper stage will doom the mathematics.Do you know expected life of each booster and US in case of SS?
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
20 launches per year both LVs is realistic starting point for cost comparsions. F9R is only doing around 25 at present with majority of that being Starlink. Neutron could reach that if they are deploying Kuiper constellation.
Until we know differently assume both Neutron and SH have same life eg 100 missions. With refurbishment costs relative to their size and engine count.
Why should we assume any of these things?
Starship is already ahead of Neutron by several years…they aren’t at the same level of development. It will probably fly in a couple months. Raptor exists and has flown test prototypes several times. There is an actual rocket undergoing testing right now.
Neutron probably won’t fly until 2025. That’s a decade after SpaceX landed its first booster! (Time flies!) It’ll probably be at least 2028-9 until they get it where Falcon 9 is today if they execute perfectly. Starship will probably be flying 20+ times a year before a physical Neutron even exists.
A lot of people have unrealistic expectations TBH. I like Neutron and I am rooting for them, but I think people underestimate how far ahead SpaceX is. It will take a long time for another organization to equal the institutional knowledge base they have in engineering, operations, and manufacturing. SpaceX has already been iterating things for years that RL hasn’t even done once yet.
And honestly, after they fly it, they need to keep the throttle going and make it fully reusable ASAP. Throwing away a likely $10m upper stage will doom the mathematics.Do you know expected life of each booster and US in case of SS?
Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
Officially I think SS is aiming for 100+ and 10+ for Neutron, it will likely take iterations for both to reach their targets.
Starship is already ahead of Neutron by several years…they aren’t at the same level of development. It will probably fly in a couple months. Raptor exists and has flown test prototypes several times. There is an actual rocket undergoing testing right now.
A lot of people have unrealistic expectations TBH.
The issue though is that SS is attempting something much more difficult, whereas Neutron is primarily a refinement of an existing reuse model.
I get similar impressions for SS, to be perfectly honest. Even if it launches from Brownsville in the next year it won't be taking on Starlink launches until later, since the 53-deg azimuth overflies land. Musk claims land overflights are allowable but I would prefer to hear that from a source that didn't get grounded for screwing up the authorizations...
Officially I think SS is aiming for 100+ and 10+ for Neutron, it will likely take iterations for both to reach their targets.