Financial information from NASA suggests the agency’s payments for launch services are increasing, according to a paper authored by Moon Kim, a research analyst for NASA’s strategic investments division. The report is set to be published in the July issue of Acta Astronautica, a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by the International Academy of Astronautics.
Adjusted for inflation, the prices NASA pays for launch services rose at an annual average rate of 2.82 percent from 1996 to 2024, the report says. “Furthermore, there is no evidence of shift in the launch service costs trend after the introduction of a new launch service provider [SpaceX] in 2016.”
...
Over the last few years, SpaceX cited inflation as the reason for steadily increasing the price of a dedicated Falcon 9 launch, from $62 million, to $67 million, and now to $70 million. This suggests SpaceX is selling launches at a significant markup, although the Falcon 9’s list price still undercuts the company’s competitors.
...
Companies charge the US government more for launch services than they do for commercial customers. By paying more, NASA and the Space Force get priority on launch schedules, and government engineers have access to internal company data for oversight purposes. NASA and Space Force missions sometimes have special requirements, such as strict payload cleanliness specifications or augmentations to place satellites into unique orbits, meaning they often can’t launch on rideshare missions, which offer cut-rate prices for missions that can fly on them.
...
NASA is paying SpaceX less to launch its newest missions than the agency would have paid ULA to launch them on Delta II or Atlas V rockets a decade ago. That’s the good news. However, despite its mastery of rocket reuse, SpaceX is charging NASA nearly as much for future Falcon 9 launches (an average of $103 million) as it did over the last decade (an average of $107 million).
And the latest average Falcon 9 prices for NASA are higher than those of the expendable Delta II rocket more than 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, ULA hasn’t launched a NASA science mission since 2022, and hasn’t won a contract with NASA’s Launch Services Program since 2019. ULA’s Atlas V rocket is nearing retirement, and the company’s replacement, the Vulcan, only became eligible to compete for NASA launch contracts last year.
No, it would still cost NASA significantly more to launch the DELTA IIs today than to contract out the Falcon 9s. Inflation doesn't hit every industry equally so this article adjusting those 2004...
No, it would still cost NASA significantly more to launch the DELTA IIs today than to contract out the Falcon 9s. Inflation doesn't hit every industry equally so this article adjusting those 2004 prices for the standard CPI inflation is a bit disingenuous. We can see that in the price of the latest competition to SpaceX's rockets, the Atlas V launches in 2017 and 2018 ($220~ million each) and the 2018 Delta II launch for $134 million. SpaceX is still pricing their launches significantly cheaper than any other launch system available.
Another thing that the article doesn't seem to take into account is what is being launched and where. For instance, if we look at the three launches that you mentioned and a SpaceX launch that...
Another thing that the article doesn't seem to take into account is what is being launched and where. For instance, if we look at the three launches that you mentioned and a SpaceX launch that happened around the same time:
The Atlas V in 2017 put 3453 kg into a geostationary transfer orbit (source) for $179 million
The Atlas V in 2018 put 694 kg into a heliocentric orbit (source) for $220 million
The Delta II in 2018 put 1514 kg into a low earth orbit (source) for $134 million
The Falcon 9 in 2018 put 362 kg into a high earth orbit (source) for $118 million
They are all different orbits and the payloads range from 362 kg to almost ten times as much.
Now, I am not a rocket expert, and these are just numbers I took from Wikipedia, but my understanding is that the weight of the payload, the orbit required, and the launch site used all affect costs. As probably does the type of payload launched. It's just not as simple as comparing one rocket launch price to another, like the article largely does.
I like Ars Technica's space coverage, but I feel that Stephen Clark in particular has the habit of sometimes veering a little too much towards clickbait and sensationalism. Or perhaps it's just naivety. Now, his colleague Eric Berger isn't a stranger to attention grabbing articles either, but his tend to be a bit better researched and argued. Or that, anyway, is how they come across to me.
Edit: After writing this, I realise that maybe the naive person here is me and payload weights and target orbits actually don't affect launch costs as much as I assume. Would someone here happen to know?
I think the simple answer to the complicated question is that it varies wildly and depends on hundreds, if not thousands of variables with the mission itself, the greater economic realities of...
I think the simple answer to the complicated question is that it varies wildly and depends on hundreds, if not thousands of variables with the mission itself, the greater economic realities of when the launch occurs, etc. It seems to me to be a fools errand to try and compare the apples and oranges of these launch systems like this article is trying to do, it's far more useful to compare total mission costs and their reliability. There is a reason SpaceX is being used over and over again, (and it's not purely political) they're simply producing the most cost effective and technically advanced systems.
I think it’s more likely that they’re spending it on launching Starship prototypes. Building the largest rockets in the world and throwing them away isn’t cheap! (The plan is that by the time they...
I think it’s more likely that they’re spending it on launching Starship prototypes. Building the largest rockets in the world and throwing them away isn’t cheap!
(The plan is that by the time they go into production, they won’t throw them away.)
I suspect there is a large element of they can charge whatever the hell they like when they have such little competition. SpaceX have offered significant savings of "the old way", but they are...
I suspect there is a large element of they can charge whatever the hell they like when they have such little competition.
SpaceX have offered significant savings of "the old way", but they are under no obligation to keep their prices down when nobody else has launch capacity to replace them.
Arguably it is a good thing in the long term, encouraging more providers to enter the market when there is apparently scope for some profits. Arguably.
This advantage won’t last long; part of the reason they (in my opinion) deserve to reap the profits for a few years is for one simple reason: they proved that reusable rockets are the correct path...
This advantage won’t last long; part of the reason they (in my opinion) deserve to reap the profits for a few years is for one simple reason: they proved that reusable rockets are the correct path forward for all future rocketry, and genuinely innovated in an otherwise stagnant field being held back by partisan congressional politics and an inability for NASA to be publicly blowing up rockets with taxpayer money.
Now that the falcon 9 has been proven reliable, cheap, and quick to refurbish + launch, the genie’s out of the bottle; every country with a serious space program is pivoting to research and investment into reusable rocketry due to SpaceX spending the billions (a good amount of it being USA taxpayer money, yes) to prove that this is the correct path forward in the long run for rocketry.
It’s funny: the actual components and materials in the falcon 9 are all solidly achievable with the technology we had in the early 2000s. The entire rocket industry really just kept doing things the same way for decades until SpaceX came and stole their lunch (if not regressing backwards: looking at you, SLS).
I do find it genuinely sad that this sort of long-term generational planning is now required to have blank-check funding from billionaires, instead of being the forte of public agencies. NASA being subject to the whims of so many different stakeholders from congress, the military, and even public opinion in general has crippled the choices of missions and contracts that they’ve been able to take in the last 30 years.
It’s telling that the most successful NASA projects are those that involve probes, rovers, etc which leave Earth’s gravity well, which Congress has typically taken a more hands-off approach to...
It’s telling that the most successful NASA projects are those that involve probes, rovers, etc which leave Earth’s gravity well, which Congress has typically taken a more hands-off approach to (probably because those offer little political capital).
In contrast, when it comes to anything related to launch technologies or crewed spaceflight, Congress can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar (and is more receptive to lobbying from the Old Space vanguard) which ultimately becomes a ball and chain for those projects which severely limits speed, scope, and chances of success.
I think there are a few factors here. One, crewed spaceflight is obviously far more expensive, the risks are far higher, and they're far more publicized. If you lose a probe, no one aside from...
I think there are a few factors here.
One, crewed spaceflight is obviously far more expensive, the risks are far higher, and they're far more publicized. If you lose a probe, no one aside from scientists really care. If you lose an astronaut, the American public will want someone's head on a platter, and political careers will fail.
Secondly, crewed spaceflight is mostly a publicity stunt. It doesn't confer significant scientific advantages over unmanned missions that justify its massively larger expense and risk.
The reasons countries fund manned missions is so they can say they have; for bragging rights. That means that those missions are inherently highly political. Their political usefulness are the main reason they're greenlit in the first place.
NASA has paid more for their launches ever since they banked on the Shuttle program to subsidize the cost per tonnage. They're just as vulnerable to contract gouging as any other branch of the...
NASA has paid more for their launches ever since they banked on the Shuttle program to subsidize the cost per tonnage. They're just as vulnerable to contract gouging as any other branch of the government, arguably moreso since their goals often depend on meeting the needs of collaborating companies/agencies to help source funding and legislative support, which seems unlikely to change given the political climate they're operating in today.
From the article:
...
...
...
So... Reusable rockets costs the same as standard because "profits"?
No, it would still cost NASA significantly more to launch the DELTA IIs today than to contract out the Falcon 9s. Inflation doesn't hit every industry equally so this article adjusting those 2004 prices for the standard CPI inflation is a bit disingenuous. We can see that in the price of the latest competition to SpaceX's rockets, the Atlas V launches in 2017 and 2018 ($220~ million each) and the 2018 Delta II launch for $134 million. SpaceX is still pricing their launches significantly cheaper than any other launch system available.
Another thing that the article doesn't seem to take into account is what is being launched and where. For instance, if we look at the three launches that you mentioned and a SpaceX launch that happened around the same time:
They are all different orbits and the payloads range from 362 kg to almost ten times as much.
Now, I am not a rocket expert, and these are just numbers I took from Wikipedia, but my understanding is that the weight of the payload, the orbit required, and the launch site used all affect costs. As probably does the type of payload launched. It's just not as simple as comparing one rocket launch price to another, like the article largely does.
I like Ars Technica's space coverage, but I feel that Stephen Clark in particular has the habit of sometimes veering a little too much towards clickbait and sensationalism. Or perhaps it's just naivety. Now, his colleague Eric Berger isn't a stranger to attention grabbing articles either, but his tend to be a bit better researched and argued. Or that, anyway, is how they come across to me.
Edit: After writing this, I realise that maybe the naive person here is me and payload weights and target orbits actually don't affect launch costs as much as I assume. Would someone here happen to know?
I think the simple answer to the complicated question is that it varies wildly and depends on hundreds, if not thousands of variables with the mission itself, the greater economic realities of when the launch occurs, etc. It seems to me to be a fools errand to try and compare the apples and oranges of these launch systems like this article is trying to do, it's far more useful to compare total mission costs and their reliability. There is a reason SpaceX is being used over and over again, (and it's not purely political) they're simply producing the most cost effective and technically advanced systems.
Thank you for detail explanation!
I think it’s more likely that they’re spending it on launching Starship prototypes. Building the largest rockets in the world and throwing them away isn’t cheap!
(The plan is that by the time they go into production, they won’t throw them away.)
I suspect there is a large element of they can charge whatever the hell they like when they have such little competition.
SpaceX have offered significant savings of "the old way", but they are under no obligation to keep their prices down when nobody else has launch capacity to replace them.
Arguably it is a good thing in the long term, encouraging more providers to enter the market when there is apparently scope for some profits. Arguably.
This advantage won’t last long; part of the reason they (in my opinion) deserve to reap the profits for a few years is for one simple reason: they proved that reusable rockets are the correct path forward for all future rocketry, and genuinely innovated in an otherwise stagnant field being held back by partisan congressional politics and an inability for NASA to be publicly blowing up rockets with taxpayer money.
Now that the falcon 9 has been proven reliable, cheap, and quick to refurbish + launch, the genie’s out of the bottle; every country with a serious space program is pivoting to research and investment into reusable rocketry due to SpaceX spending the billions (a good amount of it being USA taxpayer money, yes) to prove that this is the correct path forward in the long run for rocketry.
It’s funny: the actual components and materials in the falcon 9 are all solidly achievable with the technology we had in the early 2000s. The entire rocket industry really just kept doing things the same way for decades until SpaceX came and stole their lunch (if not regressing backwards: looking at you, SLS).
I do find it genuinely sad that this sort of long-term generational planning is now required to have blank-check funding from billionaires, instead of being the forte of public agencies. NASA being subject to the whims of so many different stakeholders from congress, the military, and even public opinion in general has crippled the choices of missions and contracts that they’ve been able to take in the last 30 years.
It’s telling that the most successful NASA projects are those that involve probes, rovers, etc which leave Earth’s gravity well, which Congress has typically taken a more hands-off approach to (probably because those offer little political capital).
In contrast, when it comes to anything related to launch technologies or crewed spaceflight, Congress can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar (and is more receptive to lobbying from the Old Space vanguard) which ultimately becomes a ball and chain for those projects which severely limits speed, scope, and chances of success.
I think there are a few factors here.
One, crewed spaceflight is obviously far more expensive, the risks are far higher, and they're far more publicized. If you lose a probe, no one aside from scientists really care. If you lose an astronaut, the American public will want someone's head on a platter, and political careers will fail.
Secondly, crewed spaceflight is mostly a publicity stunt. It doesn't confer significant scientific advantages over unmanned missions that justify its massively larger expense and risk.
The reasons countries fund manned missions is so they can say they have; for bragging rights. That means that those missions are inherently highly political. Their political usefulness are the main reason they're greenlit in the first place.
NASA has paid more for their launches ever since they banked on the Shuttle program to subsidize the cost per tonnage. They're just as vulnerable to contract gouging as any other branch of the government, arguably moreso since their goals often depend on meeting the needs of collaborating companies/agencies to help source funding and legislative support, which seems unlikely to change given the political climate they're operating in today.