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!
SpaceX is gearing up for the 13th Starship integrated flight test, which is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 16, with the launch window opening up at 6:30 PM E.T. from Starbase in South Texas.
This mission, the second with the V3 Starship and Super Heavy vehicles, builds directly on the foundation of Flight 12 while introducing ambitious new objectives, including the debut deployment of next-generation Starlink V3 satellites.
The rapid iteration between flights underscores SpaceX’s “fail fast, learn faster” philosophy, with engineers addressing specific anomalies from the previous test to push reusability and payload capabilities further.
Starship’s thirteenth flight test is preparing to launch as early as Thursday, July 16 → https://t.co/Rp7VwBzpWx pic.twitter.com/jdpFlQUEpF
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 11, 2026
Flight 12 occurred earlier in 2026 and encountered notable challenges that became catalysts for Flight 13’s improvements. Issues included booster course deviations during the flip maneuver after stage separation, reusability problems with Super Heavy’s Raptor engine relights for the boostback burn, and an engine-out event on the Starship upper stage during its propulsion phase.
These hiccups, while they did not prevent overall mission success, highlighted areas needing refinement for more consistent performance and higher safety margins in future operational flights.
Elon Musk called it Epic: The full story of SpaceX’s Starship Flight 12
In response, SpaceX implemented a comprehensive suite of both hardware and software upgrades.
For the booster, engineers developed a more robust stage separation flip sequence to maintain stable orientation and prevent off-course rotation. Hardware modifications have enhanced Raptor re-light reliability during the boostback burn, complemented by updated engine alarms and abort logic tailored for multi-engine operations. On the Starship side, propulsion system changes directly tackle the Flight 12 engine-out scenario, improving redundancy and operational resilience.
Another major focus of SpaceX for Flight 13 was the advancements in the heat shield. New tile designs and attachment mechanisms, including tests of aft flaps and skirts, aim to boost durability.
Load-sensing tiles will measure real-time stresses during atmospheric entry, while white-painted tiles simulate missing ones as imaging targets. Six of the 20 Starlink V3 satellites carried aboard will feature specialized cameras to scan and transmit heat shield imagery back to ground teams, providing critical data for future return-to-launch-site attempts.
The mission profile also includes a higher dynamic pressure ascent to stress-test the thermal protection system and increase payload potential, alongside a planned in-space Raptor engine relight demonstration.
The V3 Starlink satellites themselves mark a leap forward, equipped with laser links, deployable solar arrays, and improved antennas to expand network capacity and speeds.
The company wrote:
“For the first time, Starship will carry V3 Starlink satellites to space, which aim to greatly expand the network’s capacity and user speeds. As part of this initial test, Starship is planned to deploy 20 satellites which will extend solar arrays and antennas and will attempt to connect with ground stations in South Africa and the larger Starlink constellation via high-capacity lasers. Six of the satellites have been modified with a suite of cameras to scan Starship’s heat shield and transmit imagery down to operators to continue testing methods of analyzing Starship’s heat shield readiness for return to launch site on future missions. Several tiles on Starship have been painted white to simulate missing tiles and serve as imaging targets in the test.”
This dual-purpose flight tests both vehicle reliability and satellite tech in one integrated operation.
These iterative changes, catalyzed by Flight 12’s data, position Starship closer to rapid reusability goals essential for ambitious programs like Artemis lunar missions and global Starlink coverage.
As SpaceX continues its aggressive test cadence, Flight 13 exemplifies how targeted engineering responses to real-flight anomalies accelerate progress toward fully operational, high-cadence launches. Success here could mark another milestone in the Starship program for SpaceX.
SpaceX is preparing for the 13th integrated flight test of its Starship system, with a targeted launch as early as Thursday, July 16. The 90-minute launch window opens at 5:45 p.m. CT from Starbase in South Texas.
This comes roughly seven weeks after Flight 12 on May 22, underscoring the company’s accelerating pace in its rapid development campaign. The mission will use the latest Starship and Super Heavy V3 vehicles equipped with Raptor 3 engines. Booster 20 will attempt a controlled boostback burn, followed by a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while Ship 40 will follow a suborbital trajectory.
Starship’s thirteenth flight test is preparing to launch as early as Thursday, July 16 → https://t.co/Rp7VwBzpWx pic.twitter.com/jdpFlQUEpF
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 11, 2026
Key objectives for Flight 13 will include demonstrating reliable stage separation, engine performance under various conditions, and controlled reentry.
A major milestone for Flight 13 is the first deployment of 20 next-generation Starlink V3 satellites. These satellites feature advanced laser links for inter-satellite communication, deployable solar arrays, and onboard cameras, six of which will capture imagery of Starship’s heat shield during flight.
Several heat shield tiles on Ship 40 will be painted white to serve as imaging targets, while additional experiments test upgraded tiles on aft flaps, modified attachments on the aft skirt, and load-sensing tiles to measure stresses. The upper stage will also attempt a single Raptor engine relight in space before a targeted splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
These tests build directly on lessons from Flight 12, which introduced the V3 configuration but encountered issues including a booster flip anomaly during boostback and an engine-out event on the ship. Hardware and software modifications on Booster 20 and Ship 40 aim to improve engine relight reliability, startup sequencing, and overall robustness.
Next Starship launch aiming for Thursday https://t.co/SajPPd4pdb
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 12, 2026
The short interval between Flights 12 and 13 highlights SpaceX’s iterative approach. Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Starship launches will become “incredibly common” in the coming years.
The company envisions scaling to rates as high as one launch per hour within 4-5 years, potentially enabling thousands of flights annually. Such cadence is essential for Starship’s goals: establishing orbital refueling for lunar and Mars missions, deploying massive satellite constellations, and making life multiplanetary.
With each flight, Starship edges closer to full reusability and operational maturity. Success on July 16 would mark another step toward routine access to space and the ambitious vision of humanity becoming a spacefaring civilization.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
Tesla Semi enters new Pilot Program with interesting challenge
Tesla is building a wheelchair-accessible Robotaxi
