SpaceX
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that BFR could cost less to build than Falcon 9
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk believes that there may be a path for the company to ultimately build the massive Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster (formerly BFR) for less than Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy, a rocket 3-9 times smaller than BFR.
While it certainly ranks high on the list of wild and wacky things the CEO has said over the years, there may be a few ways – albeit with healthy qualifications – that Starship/Super Heavy production costs could ultimately compare favorably with SpaceX’s Falcon family of launch vehicles. Nevertheless, there are at least as many ways in which the next-gen rocket can (or should) never be able to beat the production cost of what is effectively a far simpler rocket.
This will sound implausible, but I think there’s a path to build Starship / Super Heavy for less than Falcon 9
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2019
Dirty boosters done dirt cheap
On the one hand, Musk might not necessarily be wrong, especially if one throws the CEO several bones in the interpretation of his brief tweet. BFR at its simplest is going to require a full 38 main rocket engines to achieve its nominal performance goals, 7 on Starship and 31 on Super Heavy. As a dramatically more advanced, larger, and far more complex engine, Raptor will (with very little doubt) cost far more per engine than the relatively simple Merlin 1D. BFR avionics (flight computers, electronics, wiring, harnesses) are likely to be more of a known quantity, meaning that costs will probably be comparable or even lower than Falcon 9’s when measured as a proportion of overall vehicle cost. Assuming that BFR can use the exact same cold gas thruster assemblies currently flying on Falcon 9, that cost should only grow proportionally with vehicle size. Finally, Starship will not require a deployable payload fairing (~10% of Falcon 9’s production cost).
All of those things mean that Starship/Super Heavy will probably be starting off with far better cost efficiency than Falcon 9 was able to, thanks to almost a decade of interim experience both building, flying, and refurbishing the rocket since its 2010 debut. Still, BFR will have to account for entirely new structures like six large tripod fins/wings and their actuators, wholly new thrust structures (akin to Falcon 9’s octaweb) for both stages, and more. Considering Starship on its own, the production of a human-rated spacecraft capable of safely housing dozens of people in space for weeks or months will almost without a doubt rival the cost of airliner production, where a 737 – with almost half a century of production and flight heritage – still holds a price tag of $100-130+ million.
-
- BFR shown to scale with Falcon 1, 9, and Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- A September 2018 render of Starship (then BFS) shows one of the vehicle’s two hinged wings/fins/legs. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster, now known as Super Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- Sadly, this is a not a sight that will greet Falcon 9 booster B1046’s fourth launch – Crew Dragon’s critical In-Flight Abort test. (SpaceX)
Adding one more assumption, the most lenient interpretation of Musk’s tweet assumes that he is really only subjecting the overall structure (sans engines and any crew-relevant hardware) of BFR relative to Falcon 9. In other words, could a ~300-ton stainless steel rocket structure (BFR) cost the same amount or less to fabricate than a ~30-ton aluminum-lithium alloy rocket structure (Falcon 9/Heavy)? From the very roughest of numerical comparisons, Musk estimated the cost of the stainless steel alloys (300-series) to be used for BFR at around $3 per pound ($6.60/kg), while aluminum-lithium alloys used in aerospace (and on Falcon 9) are sold for around $20/lb ($44/kg)*. As such, simply buying the materials to build the basic structures of BFR and Falcon 9 would cost around and $7.5M and $5M, respectively.
Assuming that the process of assembling, welding, and integrating Starship and Super Heavy structures is somehow 5-10 times cheaper, easier, and less labor-intensive, it’s actually not inconceivable that the cost of building BFR’s structure could ultimately compete with Falcon 9 after production has stabilized after the new rocket’s prototyping phase is over and manufacturing processes are mature.
*Very rough estimate, difficult to find a public cost per unit mass from modern Al-Li suppliers
Costs vs. benefits
On the opposite hand, stainless steel rockets do not have a history of being uniquely cost-effective relative to vehicles using alternative materials. The only orbital-class launch vehicles to use stainless steel (and balloon) tanks are the Atlas booster and the Centaur upper stage, with Atlas dating back to the late 1950s and Centaur beginning launches in the early ’60s. Stainless steel Atlas launches ended in 2005 with the final Atlas III mission, while multiple forms of Centaur continue to fly regularly on ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV.
Based on a 1966 contract between NASA and General Dynamics placed shortly after Centaur’s tortured development had largely been completed, Centaur upper stages were priced around $25M apiece (2018 USD). In 1980, the hardware for a dedicated Atlas-Centaur launch of a ~1500 kg Comstar I satellite to GTO cost the US the 2018 equivalent of a bit less than $40M ($71M including miscellaneous administrative costs) – $22.4M for Centaur and $17.6M for Atlas. For Atlas, the rocket’s airframe (tanks and general structure) was purchased for around $8.5M. That version of Atlas-Centaur (Atlas-SLV3D Centaur-D1A) was capable of lifting around 5100 kg (11,250 lb) into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and 1800 kg (~4000 lb) to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), while it stood around 40m (130 ft) tall, had a tank diameter of 3.05m (10 ft), and weighed ~150t (330,000 lb) fully fueled.
-
- Atlas shows off its shiny steel balloon tanks. (SDASM)
-
- The original space-faring Atlas, known as SM-65, seen here with a Mercury space capsule. (NASA)
-
- A Centaur upper stage is pictured here in 1964. (NASA)
-
- Atlas SLV3D is pictured here launching a Comstar I satellite.
-
- A Falcon 9 booster is seen here near the end of its tank welding, just prior to painting. (SpaceX)
-
- An overview of SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory floor in early 2018. (SpaceX)
In a very loose sense, that particular stainless steel Atlas variant was about half as large and half as capable as the first flight-worthy version of Falcon 9 at roughly the same price at launch ($60-70M). What does this jaunt through the history books tell us about the prospects of a stainless steel Starship and Super Heavy? Well, not much. The problem with trying to understand and pick apart official claims about SpaceX’s next-generation launch architecture is quite simple: only one family of rockets in the history of the industry (Atlas) regularly flew with stainless steel propellant tanks, a half-century lineage that completed its final launch in 2005.
Generally speaking, an industrial sample size of more or less one makes it far from easy to come to any particular conclusions about a given technology or practice, and SpaceX – according to CEO Elon Musk – fully intends to push past the state of the art of stainless steel rocket tankage with BFR. Ultimately, American Marietta/Martin Marietta/Lockheed Martin was never able to produce launch vehicle variants of the stainless steel Atlas family at a cost more than marginally competitive with Falcon 9, despite the latter rocket’s use of a far more expensive metal alloy throughout its primary tanks and structure.
At least 10X cheaper
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2019
At some point, it’s even worth asking whether the per-unit cost of Starship and Super Heavy should be relevant at all to their design and construction, at least within reason. If the goal of BFR is to drastically lower the cost of launch by radically improving the ease of reuse, it would be truly bizarre (and utterly unintuitive) if those goals could somehow be achieved without dramatically raising the cost of initial hardware procurement. Perhaps the best close comparison to BFR’s goals, modern airliners are eyewateringly expensive ($100-500M apiece) as a consequence of the extraordinary reliability, performance, efficiency, and longevity customers and regulatory agencies demand from them, although those costs are admittedly not the absolute lowest they could be in a perfect manufacturing scenario.
At the end of the day, it appears that Musk is increasingly of the opinion that the pivot to stainless steel could ultimately make BFR simultaneously “better, faster, [&] cheaper”. However improbable that may be, if it does turn out to be the case, Starship and Super Heavy could be an unfathomable leap ahead for reliable and affordable access to space. It could also be another case of Musk’s excitement and optimism getting the better of him and hyping a given product well beyond what it ultimately is able to achieve. Time will tell!
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Elon Musk
SpaceX is keeping the Space Station alive again this weekend
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus NG-24 to the ISS with 11,000 pounds of cargo Saturday.
SpaceX is targeting April 11 for the launch of Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus XL cargo spacecraft to the International Space Station, carrying over 11,000 pounds of supplies, science hardware, and equipment for the Expedition 73 crew aboard. Liftoff is set for 7:41 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available April 12 at 7:18 a.m. ET.
The mission, officially designated NG-24 under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services program, names its spacecraft the S.S. Steven R. Nagel in honor of the NASA astronaut who flew four Space Shuttle missions and logged over 723 hours in space before his death in 2014. Unlike SpaceX’s own Dragon capsule, which docks autonomously, Cygnus relies on NASA astronauts to capture it using a robotic arm before it is berthed to the space station’s module for unloading. When the mission wraps up around October, the Cygnus will depart loaded with station trash and burn up on reentry.
Countdown: America is going back to the Moon and SpaceX holds the key to what comes after
This is the second flight of the Cygnus XL configuration, which debuted on NG-23 in September 2025 and offers a roughly 20% increase in cargo capacity over the previous design. Northrop Grumman switched to Falcon 9 launches after its own Antares 230+ rocket was retired in 2023 following supply chain disruptions from the war in Ukraine.
The upcoming cargo includes a new module to advance quantum research, and an investigation studying blood stem cell production in microgravity with potential therapeutic applications on Earth.
The NG-24 mission is one piece of a much larger picture for SpaceX and the U.S. government. As Teslarati reported, SpaceX has become an indispensable launch provider for U.S. national security missions, picking up a $178.5 million Space Force contract in April 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites, while also holding roughly $4 billion in NASA contracts tied to the Artemis lunar program.
At a time when no other American rocket can match the Falcon 9’s combination of reliability, cost, and launch cadence, Saturday’s mission is a straightforward reminder of how much the U.S. government now depends on a single commercial provider to keep its astronauts supplied and its satellites flying.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Terafab project locks up massive new partner
Terafab, first revealed by Musk in March, is a massive joint-venture semiconductor complex planned for the North Campus of Giga Texas in Austin.
Elon Musk’s Terafab project just locked up a massive new partner, just weeks after the new project was announced by Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, the three companies that will be direct benefactors from it.
In a landmark announcement on April 7, Intel joined Elon Musk’s Terafab project as a key partner alongside Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. The collaboration focuses on refactoring silicon fabrication technology to deliver ultra-high-performance chips at unprecedented scale.
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan hosted Musk at Intel facilities the prior weekend, underscoring the partnership’s momentum with a public handshake.
Intel is proud to join the Terafab project with @SpaceX, @xAI, and @Tesla to help refactor silicon fab technology.
Our ability to design, fabricate, and package ultra-high-performance chips at scale will help accelerate Terafab’s aim to produce 1 TW/year of compute to power… pic.twitter.com/2vUmXn0YhH
— Intel (@intel) April 7, 2026
Terafab, first revealed by Musk in March, is a massive joint-venture semiconductor complex planned for the North Campus of Giga Texas in Austin. Valued at $20–25 billion, it aims to consolidate the entire chip-making pipeline, design, fabrication, memory production, and advanced packaging in a single location. It should eliminate a majority of Tesla’s dependence on third-party chip fab companies.
The facility will manufacture two primary chip types: energy-efficient edge-inference processors optimized for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, Cybercab and Robotaxi, and Optimus humanoid robots, and high-power, radiation-hardened variants for SpaceX satellites and xAI’s orbital data centers.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
The project’s audacious goal is to produce 1 terawatt (TW) of annual compute capacity, roughly 50 times current global AI chip output.
Production is expected to begin modestly and scale rapidly, addressing Musk’s warning that chip supply could soon become the biggest constraint on Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI growth. By vertically integrating manufacturing tailored to their exact needs, Terafab eliminates supply-chain bottlenecks and accelerates iteration for AI training, inference at the edge, and space-based computing.
Intel’s participation is strategically vital. The company will contribute expertise in advanced process technology, high-volume fabrication, and packaging to help Terafab achieve its aggressive targets. For Intel, the deal strengthens its foundry business and positions it as a critical U.S. player in the AI hardware race.
For Musk’s ecosystem, it secures domestic, purpose-built silicon at a time when global capacity meets only a fraction of projected demand for hundreds of millions of robots and orbital AI infrastructure.
This is the latest chapter in Intel-Tesla ties. In November 2025, Musk publicly stated at Tesla’s shareholder meeting that partnering with Intel on AI5 chips was “worth having discussions,” amid concerns about TSMC and Samsung capacity.
Exploratory talks followed, with Intel eyeing custom-AI opportunities. The Terafab integration transforms those conversations into concrete collaboration.
The Intel-Terafab alliance carries broader implications. It bolsters U.S. semiconductor sovereignty, drives innovation in cost- and power-efficient AI silicon, and supports Musk’s vision of exponential progress in autonomy, robotics, and space.
As AI compute demand surges, this partnership could reshape the industry, delivering the silicon backbone for a new era of intelligent machines on Earth and beyond.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls out $2 trillion SpaceX IPO valuation as ‘BS’
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
Elon Musk is quick to call out any false information regarding him or his companies on his social media platform, known as X.
A recent report that claimed SpaceX was aiming to go public with an IPO in the coming weeks at a massive valuation of $2 trillion was called out by Musk, who referred to it as “BS.”
In a swift rebuke on X, Elon Musk dismissed reports claiming SpaceX had confidentially filed for an initial public offering targeting a valuation above $2 trillion, labeling the information as unreliable.
The exchange highlights ongoing media speculation about the rocket company’s future and Musk’s frustration with what he views as inaccurate financial reporting. The report came from Bloomberg.
Don’t believe everything you read.
Bloomberg publishes bs.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2026
The controversy erupted on April 2, 2026, when influencer Mario Nawfal amplified claims from Bloomberg.
The outlet posted that SpaceX had boosted its IPO target valuation above $2 trillion, describing it as potentially one of the largest public offerings in history. Musk challenged the story.
It echoes past instances where Musk has corrected valuation rumors about his companies, emphasizing that speculation often outpaces reality.
Background context adds nuance.
Earlier reports indicated SpaceX had filed confidential IPO paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, potentially positioning it for a record-breaking debut that could eclipse Saudi Aramco’s 2019 listing.
Initial estimates pegged a possible valuation north of $1.75 trillion, building on a post-merger figure around $1.25 trillion after SpaceX absorbed xAI. A subsequent Bloomberg update claimed advisers were floating figures above $2 trillion to investors, with the offering potentially raising up to $75 billion.
SpaceX remains a private powerhouse. Its achievements include thousands of Starlink satellites providing global broadband, routine Falcon 9 rocket reusability, and a mission to slash launch costs, along with ambitions for Starship to enable Mars colonization.
The company also benefits from government contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. A public listing could democratize access for retail investors while subjecting SpaceX to greater scrutiny and quarterly reporting pressures.
Critics of the reports point to the confidential nature of filings, which limits verifiable details. Musk has previously downplayed inflated valuations, once calling an $800 billion figure for SpaceX “too high.”
Supporters argue that hype around mega-IPOs, especially amid the ongoing AI fervor, fuels premature narratives that distract from core technical milestones, such as full Starship reusability and Starlink constellation expansion.
The incident reflects broader tensions in tech finance. Anonymous sourcing in valuation stories can drive market chatter and betting activity, yet it risks misinformation.
Bloomberg defended its reporting through multiple articles citing “people familiar with the matter,” but Musk’s blunt dismissal resonated widely on X, with users piling on to question media reliability.
Whether SpaceX ultimately goes public remains uncertain. Musk has teased an IPO tied to Starlink maturity, but priorities center on engineering breakthroughs over Wall Street timelines. For now, the $2 trillion figure joins a list of rumored milestones that Musk insists should be taken with skepticism.
Tesla is using a redesigned Cybertruck battery cell to mitigate Semi challenges
SpaceX is keeping the Space Station alive again this weekend
