I’ve heard numbers such as $200/kg to LEO for Starship. I’m trying to understand this.
I figure that the Falcon Heavy is already about 96.5% reusable (at least 27 of 28 engines are reused). Based on the recent Roman telescope deal ($255M), Falcon Heavy costs $4000/kg.
How is Starship, which is basically only 3.5% “more reusable”, going to cost 20X less? Is methane massively better than RP5? Is stainless steel way better than aluminum? Is it because it’s taller? Fatter? Is it the tower catch? Is it because the booster returns to the launch pad instead of landing on a drone ship?
In: 3
>*How … only 3.5% “more reusable”, going to cost 20X less?*
This is simply not the correct way to count. If the 3.5% which are currently thrown away cost X million dollars, and 0% will costs zero, then the cost of thrown away equipment goes down by an infinite ratio (X divided by zero), not just by 3.5%. So there is no paradox with “just” a 20-fold improvement.
(Others have already answered about $200/kg being an inspirational goal, and also about economy of scale.)
Latest Answers