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
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
Starship V3 launches May 20 carrying the hardware upgrades that make Moon and Mars possible.
SpaceX is preparing to fly the most significant version of Starship yet. Flight 12, the debut of Starship V3, is targeted for Wednesday, May 20, lifting off from Starbase in South Texas at 6:30 p.m. ET. It will also mark the first launch from the newly built Pad 2, adding another layer of firsts to an already milestone-heavy mission.
Starship V3 is a meaningful step up from what came before, and a next-gen design that improves on raw power and payload capacity. V3 can carry more than 100 metric tons to orbit in reusable configuration, which is roughly three times what the previous version could handle. Additionally, the new design is lighter and simpler than before, thereby reducing risk of component failure, while also reducing flight costs. The launch pad itself is also brand new, meaning SpaceX can now prepare two rockets at the same time instead of one. What makes all of this matter beyond the hardware is what it unlocks. NASA needs V3 to be reliable enough to land astronauts on the Moon, and Musk needs it to eventually carry people and cargo to Mars at a scale that makes a permanent settlement financially possible. Every previous Starship was essentially a prototype. V3 is the version SpaceX actually intends to put to work.
On May 7, SpaceX completed the first full-duration, full-thrust 33-engine static fire with the V3 Super Heavy, following two earlier attempts that ended early due to ground equipment issues. The Ship stage had already cleared its own static fire in April, making Flight 12 the first time both V3 vehicles have been cleared to fly together.
The stakes extend well beyond this single test. As Teslarati reported, NASA needs Starship to work as the Human Landing System for its Artemis program, with a crewed lunar landing now targeted for 2028 under Artemis IV. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring more than ten tanker launches to fuel a single Moon mission. V3 is the vehicle designed to make that economically viable.
Elon Musk has stated that Starship V3 should be capable enough for initial Mars missions, a detail that connects directly to his January 2026 compensation package, which awards him 200 million shares if SpaceX reaches a $7.5 trillion valuation and helps establish a permanent Mars colony of one million people. With SpaceX targeting a Nasdaq IPO as early as June 12 at a valuation of $1.75 trillion, and holding more than $22 billion in active government contracts spanning defense, NASA, and broadband, every successful Starship test adds tangible weight to that number.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just joined forces for one reason: Starlink is winning.
America’s three largest wireless carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, announced on On May 14, 2026 that they had agreed in principle to form a joint venture aimed at pooling their spectrum resources to expand satellite-based direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity across the United States in what can be seen as a direct response to SpaceX’s Starlink initiative. D2D, in plain terms, is technology that lets a standard smartphone connect directly to a satellite in orbit, the same way it connects to a cell tower, with no extra hardware required.
The alliance is widely seen as a means to slow Starlink’s rapid expansion in the satellite internet and mobile markets. SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile service launched commercially in July 2025 through a partnership with T-Mobile, starting with messaging before expanding to broadband data. SpaceX secured access to valuable wireless spectrum through its $17 billion deal with EchoStar, paving the way for significantly faster satellite-to-phone speeds.
SpaceX was not shy about its reaction. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell responded on X: “Weeeelllll, I guess Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David.” SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Policy David Goldman went further, flagging potential antitrust concerns and asking whether the DOJ would even allow three dominant competitors to coordinate in a market where a new rival is actively entering.
Weeeelllll, I guess @Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David 🙂 https://t.co/5GzS752mxL
— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) May 14, 2026
Financial analysts at LightShed Partners were blunt, saying the announcement showed the three carriers are “nervous,” and pointed to the timing: “You announce an agreement in principle when the point is the announcement, not the deal. The timing, weeks ahead of the SpaceX roadshow, was the point.”
As Teslarati reported, SpaceX’s next generation Starlink V2 satellites will deliver up to 100 times the data density of the current system, with custom silicon and phased array antennas enabling around 20 times the throughput of the first generation. The carriers’ JV, which has no definitive agreement, no financial structure, and no deployment timeline yet, will need to move quickly to matter.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is targeting a Nasdaq listing as early as June 12, aiming for what would be the largest IPO in history. With Starlink now serving over 9 million subscribers across 155 countries, holding 59 carrier partnerships globally, and now powering Air Force One, the carriers’ joint venture announcement landed at exactly the wrong time to look like anything other than a defensive move.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
Tesla is making sweeping improvements to Robotaxi
