Quote from: guckyfan on 10/31/2017 03:42 pmI am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.Dry storage of rockets is nearly free compared with making them.It is not quite impossible there may be a problem with block 5, for example.Being in a position after an accident to be able to say 'or, you can fly a block 4 that has flown before' might considerably speed return to flight.
I am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.
More interesting will be where, when, and in what quantity they start storing the eventual overbuild. The number of customers 'insisting' on paying for new cores may drop rapidly when these customers realize that they are subsidizing the competition and SpaceX itself (which is a competitor as Starlink begins to fly).
Customers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.
Quote from: macpacheco on 10/31/2017 01:32 pmCustomers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.Do you have a link to support that assertion? Seems quite possible SpaceX is the one choosing what boosters to offer to the customer, and it is SpaceX that is being conservative by only offering the more lightly used boosters.
Some GTO recoveries clearly aren't in good shape enough for refurb, but many are, unless there's something SpaceX isn't telling us.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/31/2017 07:45 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 10/31/2017 01:32 pmCustomers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.Do you have a link to support that assertion? Seems quite possible SpaceX is the one choosing what boosters to offer to the customer, and it is SpaceX that is being conservative by only offering the more lightly used boosters.Customers choose which booster to fly, SpaceX accepts.SpaceX choose which booster to fly, customer must agree.To me its potato, potato, same net result.It would be different if SpaceX took any of its GTO recoveries and asked the customer to use that.Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?The key is there isn't a long enough line of customers willing to re-fly, so the customer is the chooser, SpaceX is the beggar.SpaceX has a lot of interest in opening up that re-use envelope and showing their process is safe.Some GTO recoveries clearly aren't in good shape enough for refurb, but many are, unless there's something SpaceX isn't telling us.
...Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?
Well... at first you'd get a discount if you flew on the reused booster. That's gone now. Soon you'll pay extra to fly on a fresh booster. Then you'll pay (a lot) extra to fly on Falcon instead of BFR. Then you'll fly on BFR or go elsewhere.
One of the GTO boosters is getting reflown... just as a side booster to Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/31/2017 06:41 pmMore interesting will be where, when, and in what quantity they start storing the eventual overbuild. The number of customers 'insisting' on paying for new cores may drop rapidly when these customers realize that they are subsidizing the competition and SpaceX itself (which is a competitor as Starlink begins to fly).Tucson. There are a lot of aircraft stored there because of the climate. But I think they will start to skew the S2:S1 ratio before there is a glut of block 5 S1s... Not sure what effect that has on cost.
I am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.I could imagine that they can upgrade block 4 to block 5. If possible they may do that. But not flying a mix.
Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?
The key is there isn't a long enough line of customers willing to re-fly, so the customer is the chooser, SpaceX is the beggar.
...I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/01/2017 11:07 am...I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.Which are the ones where you do want a failure?
SpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/01/2017 11:27 amSpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.How many other even partly reusable LV's are flying other than F9 at this time? Or what about "lowering launch prices to less than $1000/lb" ?
I think this thread was always mis-named as customers don't pay "costs" they pay "prices" and while they have cut the "floor price" for medium launch it doesn't look like they are going to go on cutting it. That's their choice, but it's prices that matter to customers, not costs.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/01/2017 05:21 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 11/01/2017 11:07 am...I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.Which are the ones where you do want a failure?In an ideal world there are no failures, but that's not the world SX lives in. So I say that's the worst case of fail because they are the core business of SX and would suggest SX had under designed the vehicle.My apologies for not making that suitably explicit for you. Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/01/2017 11:27 amSpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.How many other even partly reusable LV's are flying other than F9 at this time? Or what about "lowering launch prices to less than $1000/lb" ?I think this thread was always mis-named as customers don't pay "costs" they pay "prices" and while they have cut the "floor price" for medium launch it doesn't look like they are going to go on cutting it. That's their choice, but it's prices that matter to customers, not costs.