Yep...IF they don't use BFR (or Mini BFR) for launching these.... , 50 F9 or 15ish FH launches a year may be reason to revisit the decision not to do the engineering for second stage reuse, though.
As they are successfully reused initial resistance to booking them would fall for many customers, at least at some price discount.
How would SpaceX price reused core launches?
Do reused cores compete with SpaceX keeping up factory production of F9R?
Does SpaceX offer to renegotiate launches already contracted?
What happens to launch prices and demand?
If F9R actually proves to be rapidly reusable what are the consequences 2015-2020?SpaceX would accumulate a large and growing collection of ready to use cores. As they are successfully reused initial resistance to booking them would fall for many customers, at least at some price discount.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/19/2015 06:34 amSince I only expect them to re-fly once this year (And maybe not even on a commercial basis) I think there won't be a major shift till 2017.There will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.My bet is 2017 at earliest. This assumes neccessity of some mods to F9R, making it v1.1.1. Reality will beat simulations any day, after all.
Since I only expect them to re-fly once this year (And maybe not even on a commercial basis) I think there won't be a major shift till 2017.
In fact, this can be best modelled as an Edgeworth-Bertand Price Oligopoly, where SpaceX is the "follower" who sets the price equal to the leader's price (minus a iota, meaning a very little discount) and the leader sets the price at his lowest possible price. As long as SpaceX is the only reusable, it will work like this:- ULA (or the other non reusable competitor) sets a price.- SpaceX sets then its price equal to the ULA's price minus an arbitrarily low value.- SpaceX meets all the share of the market it can service given its supply chain.- the residual market goes to the competitor.
I think it's important to remember that SpaceX's objectives are to advance the human utilisation of space rather than make money (though the two are obviously closely linked). While it seems likely that SpaceX won't unnecessarily lower prices for same-old, same-old launches, if someone comes to them with a plan to expand such utilisation, especially with a novel use, but which they can demonstrate won't close a business case unless launch costs are lower, then they might cut them a deal (subject to SpaceX still covering their costs, naturally).
Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/19/2015 12:25 pmThere will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.Actually, SpaceX's history shows they often, but not always, slip. If you had claimed they were likely to slip, you'd be paying attention to SpaceX history. But you didn't, you said emphatically that they definitely would slip. So you are ignoring SpaceX history just as much as someone claiming there will definitely be no slip.
There will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.
What some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".
Quote from: mikelepage on 01/21/2015 08:36 amWhat some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".You don't even need "charity". Making prices lower than market can bear may be done with intention of nurture and grow that market. You will make more money selling 1000 things for 10$ than 10 things for 500$, after all.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/21/2015 04:27 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 01/19/2015 12:25 pmThere will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.Actually, SpaceX's history shows they often, but not always, slip. If you had claimed they were likely to slip, you'd be paying attention to SpaceX history. But you didn't, you said emphatically that they definitely would slip. So you are ignoring SpaceX history just as much as someone claiming there will definitely be no slip.You ignored fact that I gave two reasons, not one.This is academic discussion, as SpaceX did not announced any date of first launch with once-used stage. So technically they cannot slip yet. My response was in reaction to guy that thinks they will do it in 2015. Pretty bold, considering they did not recovered anything yet. Quote from: mikelepage on 01/21/2015 08:36 amWhat some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".You don't even need "charity". Making prices lower than market can bear may be done with intention of nurture and grow that market. You will make more money selling 1000 things for 10$ than 10 things for 500$, after all.
Just to make it more precise then, my prediction (and that's all it is) is:- First recovered stage will get dismantled.
- Second recovered stage will become a GH
- Third recovered stage (depending on results) will get launched
There might be some room in museums for other recovered stages in the mean time, since if they launch fast enough, testing will be the limiting factor. Especially with NM still not open.
As far as what the first relaunch will carry, I have to ask, since CRS is "service, not a rocket", can that happen? Does a flown rocket need to be certified as a new type of rocket? Will NASA want to show that it has a reusable (American) launch system supplying ISS?
So reuse an F9 1st stage. Tricky. I guess it'd depend on the certification. That fin package and it's controls make it seem quite a lot different to the LV NASA are OK with having drop a Dragon near their space station.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 01/21/2015 01:49 pmSo reuse an F9 1st stage. Tricky. I guess it'd depend on the certification. That fin package and it's controls make it seem quite a lot different to the LV NASA are OK with having drop a Dragon near their space station. Beg your pardon? They are OK with that. Remember CRS flights have them already.New would be reuse of the first stage. And if I understand Jim correctly, NASA has no say in this. That is - formally. I doubt that SpaceX would force it down their throat if they object. Quite possible though that NASA may select a mainly TTT payload for one flight.
I reckon Chinese, Indian, European (hopefully), Russian and Japanese RLVs will be the subject of more intensive planning along with shorter development timescales. Maybe not all of the above, but two, minimum.
What about Atlas Blue (NLV-->RNLV)?