Where is that 10x reduction and the ~1.5B per launch from for the Falcon 9 comparison? I mean Falcon 9 certainly was cheaper than the competition even without reuse, but I'm quite sure the difference wasn't as large as you're stating there.
The Falcon 9 did disrupt the industry for sure, but you don't need a 10x price reduction for that.
Re:SLS vs. Starship
by CraftThatBlock on Friday November 13, 2020 @10:52AM
(#25083497)
You're right, I was using incorrect numbers. An Atlas V's sticker price is 110M~160M, so about 2-3x cheaper
<100M is _technically_ right, but very far off. Since Starship will be fully reusable, it's upfront building investment (the ~100M price-tag you are referring to), spread over the lifetime of the vehicle, plus staff/maintenance/fuel for launches.
Falcon 9 was already a +10x reduction (~~1.5B per launch -> ~70M, likely cheaper for reused boosters), and Starship will be another +10x cheaper than F9. This means Starship will be >100x cheaper than competitors (excluding small-sat rockets like the Electron)