This is somewhat deceiving, as the drop only looks steep because of a single data point (falcon heavy) and an estimate.
One one side you have single-use rockets, and on the other side they’re reusable, don’t really look like a deception
Dude, counting downvotes doesn’t help, nor does going off on some political rant about Elon Musk. It does look like a graph that would be promoted by an Elon fanboy, but my observation had nothing to do with that. I said it looks somewhat deceiving because it makes a big deal of just one datapoint and one estimate. But I know nothing about rockets or space exploration, so maybe the underlying fundamentals are solid.
This comment was first downvoted, like, 10s after i posted it, thought it was by you so i mentioned it.
This post&comment were downvoted because of Elon Musk, and i believe they/we are mistaken, if i don’t say it there’s not a lot of people here who would.Your observation is weirds because every datapoint on this graph is here to stay, it’s not a measurement, i don’t get it, you obviously don’t believe that the curb is gonna go up, and at most i could be accused of stating something that everyone knew for years, not something that people find hard to believe in.
Chill. Most people liked your post anyway. Hiveminds are outside your control, so you gotta roll with the punches and move on. I’ve been at the receiving end of a lot more downvotes than this. Trust me, you get used to it 😂
I didn’t know that it matters if it’s reusable if it can’t even carry a payload. Starship has launched multiple times. They have little to show for it. They have not carried any payload into space with starship.
Don’t know if it matters to point that out but, as stated here, the Starship has a capacity of 100-150 tons, for a gross mass of 3.675 tons.
They’ve demonstrated that it’s doable, succeeding 3 times and failing twice. Hence, they’ve demonstrated that they’re able to carry a payload into space, feel free to learn that you were wrong in your assessment(, like me/everyone,) and to downvote this comment as well 👍
I really miss the space shuttle. That was really cool, and I don’t think we’ve built a vehicle that quite compares.
Would be interesting if it was adjusted for inflation
How is spaceflight weighted in the CPI?
Spaceship (estimate)
An important detail is missing: whose estimate?
The chart seems to have emerged from an apparently famous report(, p.13, discussed there), whose taking its source from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an american think tank.
As for the estimated cost of Starship, it seems confirmed all over the internet after a quick research, with many articles(, e.g.,) speaking about an aim for a future below 10$/kg.
However, interestingly enough, the only contradiction i found came from wikipedia, since a capacity of 100.000-150.000kg for a current launch cost of $100.000.000 would imply a cost of 666-1000$ per kg.I’ve probably made mistakes while checking all of this, so feel free to dive deeper in order to explain the differences between SpaceX’s estimates and the wikipedia page.
I love such curve-fitting techniques. By 2025 we can launch 1t into space for a few cents, if we follow the purple line.
It’s also absurd that the fit line dives down to be cheaper and earlier than an optimistic projection that will likely move further to the top right as time progresses. That’s a chart with an agenda, not an analytical regression.
The curve would be even worse if the y-axis was linear b.t.w. 🤷
I think this actually is a linear regression plotted on a log y graph.
Which a linear regression is a bad choice for something that must be asymptotic at best.
