Author Topic: Reusability effect on costs  (Read 478582 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48143
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #780 on: 11/16/2017 08:06 am »
Quote
[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

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931079161573146625

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48143
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #781 on: 11/27/2017 10:55 pm »
Quote
EU governments’ indecision on SpaceX challenge seen as threat to Ariane system’s survival
by Peter B. de Selding | Nov 27, 2017

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/eu-governments-indecision-spacex-challenge-seen-threat-ariane-systems-survival/

Article includes:

Quote
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.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10224
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #782 on: 11/27/2017 11:38 pm »
DLR’s analysis suggesting 20 - 25 flights per year are enough for significant savings.

To be clear, the image is ULA's well-discussed Dr. Sowers analysis, not DLR's.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 11:39 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #783 on: 12/01/2018 07:16 pm »
Lots of good stuff in this article on benefits of reuseability especially in regards to making more reliable LV.

spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/01/spacex-launch-sunday-will-signify-a-new-advance-in-reusing-rockets/

“There’s an additional benefit or side effect in addition to just the economics of reusability,” Koenigsmann said. “And that’s, basically, you look at the booster after the flight, and you can find things you wouldn’t see otherwise. You may see where stuff leaks or where heat comes through, or something like that. You might find loose joints that were tight before that you need to protect more. This kind of thing is actually incredibly valuable to make a more reliable rocket. You can actually inspect it.

“If you don’t know what’s happening you can just put a GoPro on the place and watch it during launch. That’s what we do, we just pull it out and watch it and go, OK, that seems to be OK, or we figure out this is something that needs to be reinforced. Telemetry is typically limited by bandwidth. We just log the telemetry locally, just in case, and we get all the high-speed data right there from a solid state basically on the vehicle, and use that to look at all the loads that the vehicle sees, all the data that are important to us, and try to improve the vehicle based on those data.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #784 on: 12/02/2018 08:48 am »
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?
Yes. It's called BFR.

Reuse let's they gain more profit from the same price to customers, which reduces their need for external investors. Cancelling work on US reuse (which has proved staggeringly difficult to make work economically) frees their R&D people to work on BFR. It also frees production workers to work on BFR.

Note reuse cuts down the booster mfg line. Every flight still needs an US which is thrown away. But once you've got 2 flights then you've halved the production rate, but beyond that the effects are rather less dramatic. You need to get 4 flights out of every booster (and all you customers have to be happy to fly reflown) before you can half that line again.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1840
  • Likes Given: 1299
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #785 on: 02/10/2019 11:49 pm »
From another thread:

Elon said that each drone recovery costs a couple of million dollars,

How can it be that expensive? An autonomous ship, a support ship and a tug ship operating for two (?) days; then lift the stage to land by two cranes - how does that add up to several million dollars?
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #786 on: 02/10/2019 11:55 pm »
They don't lease the barge for a day or two, they lease it for a year. There are dozen or so barge landings a year, so the barge cost per landing is approximately X/12. Then here are the chase boats, the tugs, the lease at dockside, the crane, the personnel, the fuel, etc etc. Seems like no problem to have it add up to millions per flight.

Matthew

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1840
  • Likes Given: 1299
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #787 on: 02/11/2019 12:39 am »
Ok. The original discussion and my question was about the additional costs for additional landings, e.g. for Starlink launches. Could that be millions for each additional sea landing?

Maybe someone knows the context of that Elon quote or has a link to it? (Nomadd suggested to ask in the forum ...)
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1840
  • Likes Given: 1299
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #788 on: 02/11/2019 01:11 am »
Found it: https://spacenews.com/spacex-targeting-24-hour-turnaround-in-2019-full-reusability-still-in-the-works/
11 May 2018

Quote
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.

Speaking of "future Starlink", this seems to refer to today's launch frequency, i.e. confirms what matthewkantar wrote.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #789 on: 02/12/2019 02:44 pm »
SpaceX rival’s answer to reusable Falcon 9 “too cautious”, says French auditor

By Eric Ralph  Posted on February 12, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-competitor-arianespace-critique-unsustainable-falcon-9-response/?mc_cid=db8b0d5a12&mc_eid=60eb267dc3

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #790 on: 02/20/2019 12:38 am »
Spacex reusability shaking launch market so much, that even if it will get all available launch opportunities, it will becoming just way to pay for bottom part of the company expenses.
Lowering launch price will not bring in short term new customers and even if Spacex to lower true cost with 10% markup, it will take time for new customers show and drain money for SS and SH development.
Article about Arianne give me such inside to dilemma that Boeing,Lockheed and other company dealing with, reusability mean lest rockets and less jobs for near future.
Spacex Starlink project is answer to go over this period(beside be revenue for future Mars base), before new customers show up because launch price is lowered.
I admire how thoughtful in long term Spacex is, seeing future issue 4 years ago and looking for solution and building new markets.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48143
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36931
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #791 on: 02/22/2019 02:44 am »
Elon’s view on number of re-uses per F9 booster:

Not expecting a B1048.5:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098771535588777986

Quote
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.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2195
  • Likes Given: 1000
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #792 on: 03/13/2019 10:48 pm »
On internal labor costs, schedule, and the possible ability to fast-track production.

Quote
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 & B1054

Now 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.

from: https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1105951398842109952

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #793 on: 04/12/2019 10:50 am »
There's a 'flight proven' one available in a month or so. 
'New' isn't a thing any more.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #794 on: 04/12/2019 01:18 pm »
So far this thread has concentrated on economic cost which is the primary factor for any traditional company. If the objective of the company is to make as much money as possible then it is rationale to do calculations comparing the overall projected cost with reuse and without reuse to see which is most profitable. In this view the market is considered as entirely external to the company.

But SpaceX is not a traditional company and its overall objective is not to make as much money as possible. For SpaceX the overall objective is to make humanity multi-planetary. Money is very important, but is ultimately only a means to an end not an end in itself as far as SpaceX is concerned.

Seen from this perspective ensuring that spacecraft can be reused will ultimately pay dividends. If reusability only becomes profitable with a high flight rate SpaceX stand to “profit” from it because they will be using their own rocket for their own purposes pushing the flight rate way up with things like Starlink and the Mars program. In the end reuse will be profitable for the purpose of making life multi-planetary, because making life multi-planetary will require a very large number of flights.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #795 on: 04/12/2019 05:40 pm »
Eric Berger seemed to be asking about FH and DH availability in the context of NASA going back to the Moon.  He should have asked a less old paradigm question such as, 'Can FH or DH be ready to supply a flight a month in 2020'... for $1-2B for the dozen flights. 

The effect of reusability on costs would then highlight both mass to orbit and bottom line cost -- both of which we need to drive in new directions.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline darkmelmet

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #796 on: 12/04/2019 03:04 pm »
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.

So they will not try 1st booster reuse unless flight rates become much higher.

He also said, that reuse F9R 1st booster with 9 engines will be harder, than Ariane 5 boosters with just 1 liquid engine, as was planned in late 1990s DLR study, and probably (same like T.Bruno) consider glide back approach easier than propulsive flyback landing ( he spoke extensively about DLR study in that interview ).

SpaceX first price for comsat. was about 4200 $ per kilogram to LEO. Now it is about 5000 $ per kilogram to LEO (more than twice to GTO). Partially because inflation , but also bc. those original prices were artificially low ( they wanted buy confidence of costumers ). F9R full trust, block 5 have about 20-25% more payload available, bc. it use subcooled LOX, cooled propellant and also improve Merlin engines with more trust.

If they use it as reusable, cost per flight could be 20% lower, but if they used it as expendable they can put 20-25% more payload on it , so cost per kilogram is the same. They throw away 6-8 cores, bc payload was too heavy, some even after FH debut, so F9,F9R cost must be similar.

So if they could use F9R block 5 as expendable, but at full capacity, they can keep same prices like today.

Using F9R as expend. at full capacity for GTO mission can be difficult. Ariane 5 have cap. 10,5 ton to GTO an always launch 2 big comsats. with one mission. F9R as expendable have cap. 8,3 t to GTO so launch 2 big comsat. with one flight, it will need high performance upper stage. Or they could launch one big comsat. with bunch of smaller satel., if there will be demand. Use F9R as expend. at full capacity for Starlink to LEO missions shouldn't be big problem.   

F9R, FH profit margins could be about 10% or below. Both T.Bruno or S.Israel said 5 years ago that both SX F9 and ILS Proton pushes prices to breakeven point ( which mean price is very close to cost) and E.Musk always denied that NASA, military launches are overpriced. Shotwell itself said that only way to finance Starship/Superheavy is through Starling profit or human crew flight. Also in some CNBC article was said, that their profit margins for comsat. launches are very tight.

Since F9R is frozen design I don't expect this ( it reusability cost savings ) ever change. Any progress with AI or 3D printing, which can make manufacturing costs cheaper, can be applied on every expendable or reusable rocket, not just F9R.   

With 40,50 flights per year, F9R should bring some significant cost savings, but that can be also said, about Vulcan with SMART and ACES, or Ariane 6 with potentially reusable Prometheus engine and just Adeline engine glide back reuse. With 40,50 flights per year fully expendable rocket could itself be significantly cheaper than reusable, so if you speak about cost savings, you should always compare expandable and reusable with same flight rates.

Lets hope that with Starship and New Glenn we learn how to reuse entire booster and big second stage and have significant cost savings, because full reusability and powered landing are much cooler, than expendable rocket or just component reuse like SMART or Adeline.

 
« Last Edit: 12/04/2019 03:18 pm by darkmelmet »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #797 on: 12/04/2019 03:15 pm »
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.

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.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline darkmelmet

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #798 on: 12/04/2019 03:26 pm »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2019 03:28 pm by darkmelmet »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #799 on: 12/04/2019 05:38 pm »
You don't know if it is canard/rumor.
We do know that Arianespace, somewhat like ULA, is fighting to retain its market share. His opinion is that it would need that flight rate.

If we are being really honest he should also call out the fact SX have the COTS contract with NASA as well as the commercial crew contract. While both are smaller than their competitors it is pretty clear they make a very substantial contribution to SX's bottom line. 

Arianspace should point that out, as well as what developing (or rather having ESA develop, then transfer to them, as Arianespace does no development work) a crew launch and return capability.
Quote from: darkmelmet
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.
He can make a prediction, as can anyone else.
But the only people who know the real numbers, and the real failure modes, are inside SX.

Everyone else is guessing.

It is a simple fact that recovering, and reusing a whole stage, rather than engine recovery, eliminates a shedload of new construction work. SX suggest an F9 booster costs about $36m to build in total. IOW even if it cost 50% of that to refurbish, re-test and rebuild that would add $18m to (whatever) the profit on the 2nd launch.

WRT to the title of the thread the effect of reusability on costs is that they can reduce them substantially, for the mfg. 

As a customer I couldn't care less.  :( My interest is on the price I have to pay to get a service at a level of reliability I'm comfortable with. Both Arianspace and ULA have very good safety records but there is a significant premium for that if you buy ULA, which is why so few people do.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2019 05:39 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Tags: SpaceX gps reuse 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0