Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SFerrin_RW t1_jdjq8gh wrote

Neutron: 13,000kg to ELO

Falcon 9: 22,500kg to LEO

Terran R: 20,000kg to LEO

​

Good luck.

14

mfb- t1_jdk8eco wrote

Almost all Falcon 9 launches are reusable, in that case you only have ~16-17 tonnes to LEO and the cost per kilogram is similar, as discussed in the article. A bit less payload, a bit cheaper per launch. Booking an expendable Falcon 9 flight costs more.

18

Xaxxon t1_jdnanqw wrote

Everyone comparing a paper rocket "price" to a flying rocket actual price.

4

mfb- t1_jdnbbpn wrote

Yes, we are studying if the planned launch price of a future rocket will be competitive with current rockets.

4

Xaxxon t1_jdnbmio wrote

"planned prices" aren't competitive with anything because they're not actual prices.

People say all sorts of shit when it doesn't cost them anything to say it. Are they taking guaranteed orders at that price? If not, it's not even worth discussing.

2

didi0625 t1_jdk82x8 wrote

What will be the price of an hypothetical terran R ?

Payload is a thing but price/kg is key. If you can send 20T to LEO but they only have 12T of cargo... You're going to go for the cheaper launcher.

6

Reddit-runner t1_jdm8iot wrote

>If you can send 20T to LEO but they only have 12T of cargo... You're going to go for the cheaper launcher.

Really depends on how much cheaper the smaller launcher is.

In a market where a 70% bigger launcher costs only a few millions more, it will make sense to increase the mass of your satellite/payload so you can massively save on development and manufacturing cost.

Because if your requirements stay the same but you can double the mass, your costs go down fourfold. (Roughly speaking)

3

OldWrangler9033 t1_jdkzjbe wrote

I think it depends on frequency of launches. If they end up being as reusable and more relaunchable than Falcon 9, they could possibly catch up.

2

Such-Echo6002 t1_jdk2bko wrote

Terran R is a fantasy. Relativity didn’t get to orbit with their first rocket. They have another 3-5 years of learning ahead

−9

DreamChaserSt t1_jdk5zx6 wrote

Wouldn't a fantasy imply they have nothing to show? Aeon R engines are being built and tested. And not getting to orbit on the first launch is far from a bad thing in spaceflight, very few rockets work the first time. They made it past Max-Q, even past MECO and stage separation, Falcon 1 didn't get that far during its maiden launch.

13

FutureMartian97 t1_jdkcr9y wrote

Almost no one has gotten to orbit on their first launch. They even said the mission would be considered a success if they made it to Max Q

8

SFerrin_RW t1_jdke4cv wrote

No less fantasy than Neutron. Relativity is running engines for Terran R right now. And Rocket Labs?

2

Such-Echo6002 t1_jdkf08e wrote

There’s a difference between a company that has had 33 successful launches to orbit and a company that has had zero successful launches to orbit. Relativity will likely do fine, but they have not proven yet that they can put something into orbit. RocketLab has, ~33 times. There’s something to be said for the learnings that RocketLab has gone through with electron and relativity lacks.

0