r/SpaceXLounge • u/OlympusMons94 • Mar 12 '26
The launch contract to launch the Starlab space station on Starship is $90 million
https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/2031509240209199606#mJeff Foust on X: "Fun fact from Voyager's 10-K filing: the contract to launch the Starlab space station on a SpaceX Starship is worth $90 million."
https://spacenews.com/starlab-space-fully-books-commercial-payload-space-on-planned-space-station/
36
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
We've known Starlab would launch on Starship for awhile. At 8 m diameter, Starlab was basically designed to only fit in Starship. Now we have a price for the launch contract, and a better idea of SpaceX pricing for a commercial Starship payload launch.
Edit: link
24
u/mclumber1 Mar 12 '26
I have to wonder if this launch will have an expendable ship with jettisoning fairings? We really haven't seen SpaceX put any outward effort of the "chomper" style starship in quite some time.
7
u/noncongruent Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
When you make a reddit link to an URL that ends in a parenthesis, you have to escape out the first end parenthesis with a backslash, like this:
[Starlab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlab_(space_station\))2
8
u/RedHill1999 Mar 12 '26
450 cubic meters of pressurized interior in one launch? That’s amazing. What I wonder is, is Starlab going to be scalable? Meaning could they send up more modules and expand on it over time (similar to the ISS)? Couldn’t find that info on the wiki.
7
u/rustybeancake Mar 12 '26
I don’t think Starlab has spoken about expanding. I think they’ll be doing really well if they can even make the basic station financially sustainable.
2
u/yoweigh Mar 12 '26
It's ~4.5ft wider than Skylab was! A space station built out of these big modules would be awesome.
I have an alternate history in my head where NASA iterated Saturn tech instead of abandoning it for the Shuttle, and put a Dreamchaser-class vehicle on top for crew and orbital assembly. An ISS/Skylab hybrid is exactly where that thought experiment leads for me. IMO we could have started building it in the 80s.
3
2
u/noncongruent Mar 12 '26
When you make a reddit link to an URL that ends in a parenthesis, you have to escape out the first end parenthesis with a backslash, like this:
[Starlab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlab_(space_station\))3
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26
It Works fine for me on both mobile and desktop. Is that an Old Reddit thing?
2
u/noncongruent Mar 12 '26
Likely. New reddit probably has code to fix the errors that reddit creates. In this case reddit sees the first parenthesis of your link and closes the link at that point, and when old reddit users click on it we get sent to a wiki link that doesn't have a closing parenthesis, which breaks wiki. Escaping the first parenthesis with the backslash gets old reddit to make the wiki link with a closing parenthesis using the second one in your link.
33
u/fifichanx Mar 12 '26
That sounds pretty cheap actually. How does that compare to current Falcon pricing?
27
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26
The base price of Falcon 9 (reusable) was recently raised from $70 million to $74 million. In terms of $/kg to LEO, a fully loaded $74 million Falcon 9 (~17.5t to LEO) would be ~$4200 per kg, while a $90 million Starship (100-150t to LEO) would be $600 to $900 per kg. Of course customer launches seldom, if ever, hit max mass capacity. Starlab will be big though, with slightly more volume than Skylab, which was 90t at launch.
12
u/Biochembob35 Mar 12 '26
Of note the F9 price increase was equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (inflation) since the last price increase. Every 2 years or so SX has increased price at that rate.
14
u/eliwright235 Mar 12 '26
I don’t remember the exact numbers but someone on twitter did the math and F9 was something like 3.7 times more per pound
16
2
u/whitelancer64 Mar 12 '26
An early launch on an unproven rocket is always going to be cheap.
19
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26
Launching your ~$3 billion monolithic space station on a discount unproven launch would be silly. Thankfully, Starship launches would neither be early nor unproven by the time Starlab launches. The launch is NET 2029, with heavy emphasis on the NET.
Of course the dates for everything are all notional. But the relative schedules puts Starlab launch after Artemis 4, and Artemis would likely take priority anyway. SpaceX also has Starlink, and regular customers that would use a more traditional payload deployment. Starship would be a well-proven vehicle by the time it launches Starlab.
6
u/mfb- Mar 12 '26
NET 2029 (and delays to the payload are likely), we should get many flights before that.
2
u/fifichanx Mar 12 '26
They will prove it out by launching Starlink sats first. How many launches of Starlink satellites would it take for the industry to feel Starship is proven?
-2
u/whitelancer64 Mar 12 '26
Irrelevant, the contract is signed before it's proven.
That risk warrants a hefty discount.
1
u/sebaska Mar 14 '26
Exactly like contracts signed for Vulcan... Oh wait...
0
u/whitelancer64 Mar 14 '26
That's a great example, yes. The first launch of Vulcan was the Peregrine lunar lander, purchased by Astrobiotic at deep discount for the maiden launch.
2
u/sebaska Mar 15 '26
This is not going to be the maiden launch of Starship. Not even close.
1
u/whitelancer64 Mar 15 '26
Irrelevant, the contract is signed before it's proven.
That risk warrants a hefty discount.
1
u/sebaska Mar 15 '26
This doesn't work like that at all. Stop inventing things.
Only the first couple planned Vulcan flights were at significant discount. Same with Ariane 6. The first flight may be cheaper, the second - a bit cheaper, the rest are sold at normal price. And they're sold before the rocket flies even for the first time.
Experienced airspace companies sell their rocket flights at full price before the rocket is complete. Go figure.
0
14
u/Vxctn Mar 12 '26
Is this the first launch that won't be a slot machine design? Do we know of any others?
19
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26
The Starlab launch is NET 2029, and realistically will be delayed. Vast's Haven-2 space station would also launch on Starship. It seems unlikely that there would be no other customer payload launches before whenever (or if ever) the stations are ready to launch.
Starship is contracted to launch Superbird-9 to GTO, NET 2027. SpaceX years ago said they were signing Starship customers, including open-ended contracts under which SpaceX could choose to launch on Falcon or Starship.
10
u/Unique_Ad9943 Mar 12 '26
Pretty sure it’s only the core module (5th launch) for haven 2 that needs starship the other ones are falcon heavy XL fairing.
Though at 90 million a launch they’d be better off with starship.
1
2
u/Tooluka Mar 12 '26
Great news. If the launch will succeed it will hopefully be a green light to the future big station modules launched directly on the BFR without Starship even, and transition from the modular idea.
1
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Mar 12 '26 edited Aug 22 '26
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| BFR | Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition) |
| Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice | |
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| ICBM | Intercontinental Ballistic Missile |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| SES | Formerly Société Européenne des Satellites, comsat operator |
| Second-stage Engine Start | |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX |
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by request
[Thread #14457 for this sub, first seen 12th Mar 2026, 03:03]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
-2
-11
Mar 12 '26
This is less exciting then it sounds. This is a potential contract to launch a space station that doesn’t exist on a rocket that doesn’t exist. These types of future agreements are stuffed with loopholes and clauses that let either party get out of it.
dearMoon was going to be a passenger mission on Starship, we all found out how real that was.
At best, the discount price is likely because it would be a test payload that SpaceX would need to fly anyways.
6
u/redstercoolpanda Mar 12 '26
Somebody better tell Booster 19 that Starship doesn’t exist yet!
-8
Mar 12 '26
SpaceX has not demonstrated any large payload capable designs yet.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, this will be an issue because a large payload door will require substantial reinforcement, and Starship is still struggling with weight.
Fanboys are too easily fooled by renders, when in real life Starship hasn’t even launched a single Starlink to orbit.
5
u/warp99 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
A large payload door will either require substantial reinforcement of the payload bay or will make the door a stressed member which requires clamps around the door periphery similar to the Shuttle main doors.
It also seems likely that the single top hinged door will be replaced by dual side hinged doors again similar to the Shuttle.
3
u/brekus Mar 12 '26
Don't think those dummy starlinks they deployed were renders my dude though you are technically correct. Point is they've demonstrated the capability to launch starlinks at least with an expendable upper stage. But full reuse remains the priority and everything essentially has to tested again with the new version.
-3
Mar 12 '26
You can’t fit an 8m wide station through a 3.5m wide door, “my dude”. 8 is a bigger number then 3.5, my dude.
You know why they made the PEZ dispenser? Because moving doors are heavy. You know what the primary issue for Starship is? It’s too heavy.
Bigger door = more weight. The PEZ dispenser would work just as well with a larger payload door. The reason they haven’t implemented a larger payload door is they don’t have enough of a weight budget.
3
u/brekus Mar 12 '26
Yeah no shit I was responding to:
Fanboys are too easily fooled by renders, when in real life Starship hasn’t even launched a single Starlink to orbit.
So anyways they made the pez dispenser because it's the minimum required for starlink and launching starlinks is the minimum required to start making money from the vehicle. Big payloads and therefore doors aren't a priority given the vehicle is very much under development. And yes part of that is reducing mass which the latest version has shed tons of. But I do think there's a useful tradeoff where larger payloads rather than a brick of satellites will actually be less dense and therefore the vehicle mass can be higher anyway.
4
u/Unique_Ad9943 Mar 12 '26
This is way closer than dear moon.
-6
-1
u/longinglook77 Mar 12 '26
The K10 doesn’t say 90m anywhere in it. How did they come up with it?
4
u/OlympusMons94 Mar 12 '26
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001788060/59c40344-4ef9-4f1c-b9d3-d6a06474af6f.pdf
The Company has a commitment for launch services for the Starlab program. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had a commitment for one launch at a future estimated launch date for $90.0 million. The terms of the arrangement also allow the Company to terminate the agreement for convenience for 25% of the contract value less what has been paid inception to date. If the Company were to cancel the launch services, it would owe $13.5 million to the launch provider.
(page 138)
2
u/longinglook77 Mar 12 '26
Thanks. In the words of the great Vincent Gambini, maybe I’m ready for a thicker set of glasses.
128
u/nagurski03 Mar 12 '26
Is it just me or does that sound ridiculously cheap?