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 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.
Elon Musk
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.
Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.
The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:
“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”
Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:
“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”
Not exactly. SpaceX requires that there be no annoying “portal” to use Starlink.
Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home.
Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.
While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.
Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.
Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.
SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.
Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals how SpaceX is always on board Air Force One
Musk confirmed Tuesday that Starlink internet is live and kicking on Air Force One. Responding with a simple “Yup!” to a post showing him and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang aboard the presidential jet en route to Beijing with President Trump, Musk proved the point: America’s most important aircraft now has seamless, high-speed satellite connectivity—even over the middle of the Pacific.
Air Force One, the official call sign for a U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President, now runs on SpaceX Starlink, CEO Elon Musk revealed.
Musk confirmed Tuesday that Starlink internet is live and kicking on Air Force One. Responding with a simple “Yup!” to a post showing him and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang aboard the presidential jet en route to Beijing with President Trump, Musk proved the point: America’s most important aircraft now has seamless, high-speed satellite connectivity—even over the middle of the Pacific.
Yup!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
The timing couldn’t be more symbolic. With trillion-dollar CEOs and the President sharing the cabin, Starlink wasn’t just a nice-to-have—it was mission-critical. No more spotty signals or dropped calls. Instead, real-time video conferences, secure data transfers, and global coordination at Mach speed.
Starlink’s aviation push has already transformed commercial and private flying. Dozens of major airlines have signed on or begun rollouts.
Hawaiian Airlines, United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Air France, SAS, WestJet, airBaltic, and Emirates (now equipping its Boeing 777 and A380 fleets) offer Starlink Wi-Fi to passengers. Lufthansa plans to follow in late 2026.
On private jets, the upgrade is even hotter: owners and charter companies report skyrocketing demand because Starlink turns cabins into flying boardrooms.
Starlink gets its latest airline adoptee for stable and reliable internet access
The advantages are massive. Traditional in-flight Wi-Fi relied on slow, high-latency geostationary satellites or ground-based systems that cut out over oceans and remote areas. Starlink’s low-Earth-orbit constellation delivers blazing speeds—often exceeding 200 Mbps download with latency as low as 25-60 milliseconds—gate-to-gate, from takeoff to landing.
Passengers stream 4K video, join Zoom calls, or work in the cloud without buffering. Pilots get real-time weather, NOTAM updates, and live ATC data. Even private-jet travelers get the benefits, as it means productivity that rivals the office.
On Air Force One, those benefits become strategic superpowers. The presidential aircraft demands unbreakable communications for national security, diplomacy, and crisis response. Starlink provides global coverage with no dead zones, offering redundancy against traditional systems that could fail in contested airspace or during long-haul flights.
It enables the President and staff to maintain secure links with the Pentagon, allies, or business leaders anywhere on Earth. During the Beijing trip, it likely facilitated direct coordination on trade, tech, and AI—proving the system’s reliability for the highest-stakes missions.
Critics once dismissed Starlink as a rich-person toy or military experiment. Now, it’s the backbone of commercial fleets, private aviation, and the world’s most visible symbol of American power, and it is providing stable internet to travelers.
With over 2,000 commercial aircraft committed and private-jet installations booming, Starlink is rewriting the rules of connected flight, and it seems like each week, a new airline is choosing to use it for on-flight connectivity.
For Air Force One, it’s more than faster Wi-Fi. It’s uninterrupted command-and-control in an increasingly connected world—ensuring the President never has to go dark at altitude. Elon Musk just made sure of it.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
