Adding to previous comment, looks like the cost per launch when the system was up and running was ~1billion USD inflation adjusted. I'm going to assume Starship will beat that easily.

▲

staplung 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe, but remember that getting astronauts to the moon and back took a single Saturn V launch but with Starship, it will take (at least) 10 flights for refueling, possibly as many as 20. So each launch has to be much cheaper to beat Saturn V for the full mission.

Nobody but SpaceX knows how much each Starship test costs but the estimates online range from $50 million to $200 million. Presumably, whatever the actual cost, they're more expensive right now while they're redesigning bits and doing custom, one-off work for each flight but it has a long way to go to beat Saturn V for the full mission.

▲

briandw 5 days ago | parent [-]

A starship mission to the moon will land over 100tons of cargo. Saturn V could get roughly 5tons to the surface. Its an entirely different class of operation.

▲

thesmart 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's LEO, not to lunar orbit and entry. Saturn V had a maximum lift capacity of 310,000 lb (140,000 kg) to low Earth orbit (LEO) and could deliver approximately 50 tons (45,000 kg) of payload to the Moon.

	▲	boxed 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well... no. The PLAN for the Starship lander is to have 100tons of cargo. That's why it takes so many refulings.

▲

loeg 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Looks like Starship test flights are already beating that $1 billion per-launch cost (I'm seeing estimates in the $100-500 million range), and they'd like to get the marginal cost down to ~$10 million.

▲

anonymars 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm confused -- how is it meaningful to compare the cost of Starship test flights with operational Saturn V missions?

▲

fluoridation 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

There were no Saturn V test flights like Starship is doing, that I can find info on. Wikipedia lists 3 tests before Apollo 4, which was the first full launch.

▲

anonymars 5 days ago | parent [-]

From context I interpreted GP to be somehow concluding that Starship is "cheaper" (these test flights are "beating" the price tag of the Saturn V launches), I'm gently pointing out I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on empty suborbital test flights vs. taking humans to the moon and back

	▲	fluoridation 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It would seem no one has the information I originally requested. All we have to go on for Saturn V is a per-launch cost where we don't know what's included. I agree it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it seems to be all we have.

▲

boxed 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The test flights include R&D. The ~1b per flight of Saturn V was excluding R&D when the program was churning along.

I guess you could argue that it's never meaningful to compare anything that isn't a commodity though, which certainly isn't the case here. But I find that silly.

▲

anonymars 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's not what I'm saying. We are comparing 1 billion per operational Saturn V flight to...what? There are no operational Starship flights to compare with. What sense is there in comparing the cost of manned flights to the moon and back with unmanned suborbital test flights?

▲

boxed 4 days ago | parent [-]

Saturn V did have at least one suborbital mission with Spacelab though. So not as hard to compare as you say.

	▲	dragonwriter 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Spacelab was carried on Shuttle flights, Skylab was launched on a modified Saturn V. And it was low orbit, not suborbital.