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
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals date of SpaceX Starship v3’s maiden voyage
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed the timeline for the next Starship launch. It will be the first launch using SpaceX’s revamped design for Starship, as its v3 rocket will take its maiden voyage sooner than many might expect.
Musk announced on April 3 on X that the next Starship flight test, and the first flight of the upgraded v3 ship and booster, is 4 to 6 weeks away. The update signals the end of a nearly six-month hiatus since the program’s last launch.
Elon says the first V3 Starship launch will occur in 4-6 weeks
It will be the first Starship launch since Flight 11 on October 13, 2025 https://t.co/QnnYPTdbUu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 3, 2026
The upcoming mission, designated as Starship’s 12 integrated flight test (IFT-12), marks a significant milestone. It will be the debut of the v3 configuration, featuring a taller Super Heavy Booster and Starship upper stage. The changes SpaceX has made with the v3 rocket and booster are an increased propellant capacity and the more powerful Raptor 3 engines.
Earlier predictions from Musk in March had pointed to an April timeframe, but the latest timeline now targets a launch window in early to mid-May 2026.
The V3 iteration represents a substantial evolution from previous Starship prototypes. Engineers have optimized the design for improved manufacturability, higher thrust, and greater efficiency. Raptor 3 engines deliver significantly more power while reducing weight and production costs compared to earlier variants.
With these enhancements, SpaceX aims to boost payload capacity toward 200 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration — a dramatic leap from the roughly 35-ton target of prior versions. Such capabilities are critical for ambitious goals, including NASA’s Artemis lunar missions and eventual crewed flights to Mars.
The announcement arrives after Flight 11 on October 13 of last year, which concluded a busy 2025 testing campaign. Since then, SpaceX has focused on ground testing, including cryoproofing of Ship 39 and preparations for Booster 19, the first V3 Super Heavy.
Recent activities have involved static fires, activation of the new Pad 2 at Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and integration of Raptor 3 engines.
A prior incident with an early V3 booster on the test stand in late 2025 contributed to the delay, necessitating additional assembly and qualification work.
Musk’s timeline updates have become a hallmark of the Starship program, often described with characteristic optimism.
SpaceX’s Starship V3 is almost ready and it will change space travel forever
While past targets have occasionally shifted by weeks, the rapid iteration pace remains impressive. However, don’t be surprised if this timeline shifts again, as Musk has been overly optimistic in the past with not only launches, but products under his other companies, too.
SpaceX continues to refine launch infrastructure, including new propellant loading systems and tower mechanisms designed to support higher cadence operations. A successful V3 flight could pave the way for more frequent tests, tower catches of both booster and ship, and progression toward operational reusability.
The v3 debut is viewed as a transition point for Starship, moving beyond experimental flights toward a system capable of supporting large-scale deployment of Starlink satellites, lunar landers, and interplanetary transport.
Success on IFT-12 would demonstrate not only the new hardware’s performance but also SpaceX’s ability to recover from setbacks and maintain momentum.
As the 4-to-6-week countdown begins, anticipation builds at Starbase. Teams are finalizing vehicle stacking, conducting final pre-flight checks, and preparing for regulatory approvals. The world will be watching to see if Starship V3 can deliver on its promise of transforming humanity’s access to space.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
SpaceX wins a $178.5M Space Force contract to launch missile tracking satellites starting in 2027.
The U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency. The contract, designated SDA-4, covers two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027, one from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and one from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The satellites, built by Sierra Space, are designed to bolster the nation’s ability to detect and track missile threats from orbit.
The award falls under the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1 program, which Space Force uses to move payloads to orbit on faster timelines and at more competitive prices. “Our Lane 1 contract affords us the flexibility to deliver satellites for our customers, like SDA, more easily and faster than ever before to all the orbits our satellites need to reach,” said Col. Matt Flahive, SSC’s system program director for Launch Acquisition, in the official press release.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
The SDA-4 contract is the latest in a long string of national security wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported last month, the Space Force recently shifted a GPS III satellite launch from ULA’s Vulcan rocket to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 after a significant Vulcan booster anomaly grounded ULA’s military missions indefinitely. That move made it four consecutive GPS III satellites transferred to SpaceX after contracts were originally awarded to its competitor.
This didn’t come without a fight and dates back years. SpaceX originally had to sue the Air Force in 2014 for the right to compete for national security launches, at a time when United Launch Alliance held a near monopoly on the market. Since then, the company has steadily displaced ULA as the dominant provider, and last year the Space Force confirmed SpaceX would handle approximately 60 percent of all Phase 3 launches through 2032, worth close to $6 billion.
With missile defense satellites now part of its launch manifest alongside GPS, communications, and reconnaissance payloads, SpaceX is giving hungry investors something to chew on before its imminent IPO.
Tesla broadens most-wanted Model Y to eight new markets
Tesla hit by Iranian missile debris in Israel
