Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that BFR could cost less to build than Falcon 9

SpaceX continues to build the first Starship prototype in South Texas. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal - 01/27/19)

Published

on

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.

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).

Advertisement

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.

 

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

Advertisement
A rough visualization of the size of Starhopper, Starship, and Super Heavy. (Austin Barnard, Teslarati)

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.

 

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 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!

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Starlink makes a difference in Philippine province ravaged by typhoon

The Severe Tropical Storm battered the province, leaving communications networks in the area in shambles.

Published

on

Credit: Starlink/X

The Philippines’ Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) is using Starlink to provide connectivity in the municipality of Masbate, which was affected by Severe Tropical Storm Opong (international name Bualoi). 

The Severe Tropical Storm battered the province, leaving communications networks in the area in shambles.

Starlink units enhance connectivity

DICT Secretary Henry Aguda visited the province to assess internet and communications infrastructure and deliver 10 additional Starlink satellite units, according to the Philippine News Agency. The is move aimed at strengthening emergency response and restore digital access to the area.

Aguda met with Masbate Governor Richard Kho during his visit and joined telecommunications representatives in inspecting provincial offices, free charging stations, and Wi-Fi connectivity sites for residents. 

According to DICT officer-in-charge Rachel Ann Grabador, three Starlink units, 10 routers, and a 2kW solar-powered station have already been deployed in the province following the typhoon. The units have been installed at key facilities such as Masbate Airport’s communications tower and the Masbate Provincial Hospital’s administrative office. 

Advertisement

Game-changing technology

Thanks to its global coverage and its capability to provide high-speed internet connectivity even in remote areas, Starlink has become the best communications solution that can be deployed in the aftermath of natural disasters. Its low-cost kits, which are capable of of providing fast internet speeds, are also portable, making them easy to deploy in areas that are damaged by natural disasters.

As noted in a Space.com report, there are currently 8,475 Starlink satellites in orbit, of which 8,460 are working, as of September 25, 2025. Initially, SpaceX had filed documents with International regulators to place about 4,000 Starlink satellites in Low Earth Orbit. Over time, however, the number of planned Starlink satellites has grown, with SpaceX aiming to launch as many as 42,000 Starlink satellites to fully connect the globe.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX shares targets and tentative launch date for Starship Flight 11

As with all SpaceX tests, the estimated timeline for Starship Flight 11 remains subject to change based on conditions and readiness.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX is targeting Monday, October 13, for the eleventh test flight of its Starship launch system. The launch window is expected to open at 6:15 p.m. CT. 

Similar to past Starship missions, a live webcast will begin about 30 minutes before launch on SpaceX’s website, X account, and X TV app. As with all SpaceX tests, the estimated timeline for Starship Flight 11 remains subject to change based on conditions and readiness.

Super Heavy booster landing test

The upcoming mission will build on the data gathered from Starship’s tenth test flight, focusing on booster performance and upper-stage capabilities. The Super Heavy booster, previously flown on Flight 8, will launch with 24 flight-proven Raptor engines, according to SpaceX in a blog post on its official website. Its primary objective is to validate a new landing burn engine configuration designed for the next generation of Super Heavy.

Instead of returning to Starbase, the Super Heavy booster will follow a trajectory toward the Gulf of America. During descent, it will ignite 13 engines before transitioning to a five-engine divert phase and then completing the landing burn with three central engines, entering a full hover while still above the ocean surface, followed by shutdown and dropping into the Gulf of America.

Starship upper-stage experiments

The Starship upper stage for Flight 11 will carry out a series of in-space demonstrations, including the deployment of eight Starlink simulators that are comparable in size to next-generation Starlink satellites. These payloads will reenter and burn up during descent. A planned Raptor engine relight in orbit will also provide valuable test data.

Advertisement

To evaluate the upper stage’s resilience during reentry, SpaceX engineers have intentionally removed heat shield tiles from select areas to stress-test Starship’s thermal protection system. The vehicle will attempt new maneuvers during descent, including a banking profile and subsonic guidance algorithms intended to simulate future return-to-launch-site missions. The upper stage will ultimately target a splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

SpaceX has already posted a link to the livestream for Starship Flight 11: 

Continue Reading

News

Astra CEO shades SpaceX over employee workload and Starbase

Elon Musk once stated that no one ever changed the world working just 40 hours a week.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk once stated that no one ever changed the world working just 40 hours a week. This was something that is openly known among his companies. They have the potential to change the world, but they require a lot of hours.

SpaceX’s working environment was recently criticized by Chris Kemp, the chief executive officer of Astra. During some remarks at the Berkeley Space Symposium 2025 earlier this month, Kemp shared some sharp remarks about the Elon Musk-led private space enterprise.

SpaceX working conditions and Starbase

As noted in a report from Ars Technica, Kemp discussed a variety of topics during his talk. These included Astra’s successes and failures, as well as his thoughts on other players in the spaceflight industry. To be fair to Kemp, he practically shaded every major rival, calling Firefly’s engine “garbage,” dubbing Blue Origin as slow, and stating that Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket is “too small.”

SpaceX also received some colorful words from the Astra CEO. According to Kemp, SpaceX is leading the way in the spaceflight industry and Elon Musk is admirable in the way that he is willing to fail in order to move quickly. He did, however, highlight that Astra offers a significantly better working environment than SpaceX.

“It’s more fun than SpaceX, because we’re not on the border of Mexico where they’ll chop your head off if you accidentally take a left turn. And you don’t have to live in a trailer. And we don’t make you work six and a half days a week, 12 hours a day. It’s appreciated if you do, but not required,” Kemp said.

Advertisement

Elon Musk’s demands

It is known that Elon Musk demands quite a lot from his employees. However, it is also known that Musk-led companies move very fast and, in more ways than one, they have accomplished world-changing feats. Tesla, for example, has practically ushered in the era of the modern electric vehicle, and SpaceX has made space attainable through its reusable rockets. With this in mind, employees at Musk’s companies, and this of course includes SpaceX, are likely proud of their long work hours. 

No one could probably go to Mars in this lifetime with a team that really works just 40 hours a week, after all.

Continue Reading

Trending