[Karim Michel] Sabbagh [SES]: have seen launch costs for a 3.5-ton satellite go from more than $100M to closer to $60M now, and expect to drop to half that. #NewSpaceEurope
EU governments’ indecision on SpaceX challenge seen as threat to Ariane system’s survivalby Peter B. de Selding | Nov 27, 2017
United Launch Alliance thinks SpaceX’s reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage makes no economic sense unless each stage is used at least 10 times. Germany’s DLR disagrees, and says SpaceX’s new launch cadence puts it within reach of making reusability pay. [Attached slide Credit: ULA]
DLR’s analysis suggesting 20 - 25 flights per year are enough for significant savings.
I've seen discussion about this spread around multiple topics. Please kill this topic if there is already one but I couldn't find it on my phone browser.So there are various guesses but often vehicle price is guessed as 70% first stage, 30% upper stage. So initial impression is that flying reused booster can reduce launch cost by 70%. Of course that's not true, because there is refrubrishment cost, launch operation cost, payload integration cost etc. Still it sounds like if reusing 1st stage could reduce cost by about 50%. And we still are not talking about price as it makes no sense for Space X to reduce their profit from service provided so it is about cost reduction which is different from price reduction.Let's assume that this 50% cost price is good enough to include price of stage if split among multiple launches so it's 50% cost reduction for all launches. Is that the case? No. Because building stage is only part of it's cost. There is also R&D cost per stage which is independent from if stage is build or not. There are for sure people here who know how big part is this. But please keep in mind it's not development of Falcon9 cost. It's quite pernament cost of keeping engineering department in house. Which is used to improve technology continuesly. And I believe it's quite a cost. So Space X needs to earn enough by their services to pay for it. Since they are continuesly innovating this can be treated as kind of fixed cost indendent from if rockets are build or not. This cost could be reduced once tech is developed but nobody (except some imaginary investors and short sighted clients) really want Space X to be scalled down.Finally there is keeping production line cost. Those are employees which are not hired by temporary work agency. Nobody want SpaceX to lose higly qualified work force.So finally my reasoning is that reusing (in short term) saves very little. Some raw materials and outsorced parts, but those are not many.What reusability allows is to use resurces currently engaged in building stages to be used for other purposes. If there is market increase some of those can be transferred to build more second stages. Now for the same operational cost there can be more launches and there ara real savings.But if launch rate doesn't grow enough or SpaceX doesn't scale down there is only limited saving.So assuming reusability is given and SpaceX won't scale down, which I believe are true assumtions, cost reduction allowed by this humongous achievement is dependent from demand side and can be very small if there is no increase in launch rate.Space X has some backlog so some increase is possible. But how big is that?And am I missing something? Maybe raw materials and outsorced parts are really costly? Or my reasoning is flawed?
Elon said that each drone recovery costs a couple of million dollars,
Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward. He cautioned though that SpaceX has lots of fixed costs, its future Starlink satellite internet constellation and development of the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) that require revenue from launches, meaning prices can only go so low. Ocean recoveries, which require sending drone ships out to sea for landing Falcon 9 first stages, also cost “a few million dollars,” he said.
Not expecting a B1048.5:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098771535588777986QuoteHigh probability of this particular rocket getting destroyed by Dragon supersonic abort test. Otherwise, at least 20 or 30 missions for Falcon 9. Starship will take over before the F9 fleet reaches end of life.
High probability of this particular rocket getting destroyed by Dragon supersonic abort test. Otherwise, at least 20 or 30 missions for Falcon 9. Starship will take over before the F9 fleet reaches end of life.
If you want to look at the current Falcon Heavy as a strong bit of evidence, what I can say for sure is that the three new boosters (prob four, actually) went from nothing to completed and in FL in less than 12 months. Prob more like 6-9, given production of B1046-B1051 & B1054Now that doesn't necessarily translate into "lead time" per se, but it gives a good idea. SpaceX is actually allowing production workforce to cut weeks to 40 hours (!!!) because they're finishing everything on Friday and have nothing to do on Sat.Which is to say that Block 5's reusability has produced more than a little slack in the Falcon production system. Priority production could probably be expedited immediately with minimal impact to the launch business, much like the latest FH was effectively built all at once.
Experience with F9R is consistent with what Stéphane Israël CEO of Arianespace said five years ago. That any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per year and market for this can be only in big countries like USA or China, but not in EU.
Quote from: darkmelmet on 12/04/2019 03:04 pmExperience with F9R is consistent with what Stéphane Israël CEO of Arianespace said five years ago. That any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per year and market for this can be only in big countries like USA or China, but not in EU. He's welcome to that view, and maybe it applies to him but it pretty clearly does not apply to SpaceX. This canard about high flight rates just won't go away.
You don't know if it is canard/rumor.
S.Israel knows very well how to predict, how high refurbishment costs and overall fixed costs will any partially or fully reusable rockets have and how high flight rates they will need to have some significant cost savings. You don't know even SpaceX own F9R data about this.