Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/08/2016 06:59 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 06/08/2016 06:52 pmQuote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.This can happen even without costs coming down, but pretty soon you'll have companies going bankrupt and exiting. So in reality, yes, reducing costs will allow prices to be reduced in a competitive market.In other words:False. But true.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/08/2016 06:52 pmQuote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.This can happen even without costs coming down, but pretty soon you'll have companies going bankrupt and exiting. So in reality, yes, reducing costs will allow prices to be reduced in a competitive market.
Quote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost."
Quote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmI think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.Think of it like this. SpaceX is selling an orbited payload. The value of that from the paying customer's perspective doesn't change with the cost of the method. SpaceX will price at the best price they can get from the market unless they are doing something for charitable reasons.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices. This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.Think of it like this. SpaceX is selling an orbited payload. The value of that from the paying customer's perspective doesn't change with the cost of the method. SpaceX will price at the best price they can get from the market unless they are doing something for charitable reasons.
Tried and gave up at educating about why insurance underwriting costs have dropped for F9, and will drop further. Just accept it. Cannot "understand it for you".
Because insurers are always a little skeptical when something new is introduced, the information from the upcoming meeting will enable them to assess the risks of flying with a reusable rocket, Poliseno said.
The original point that kicked of this chain was "Would reflight be a low cost" alternative? I think Elon has made comments that the answer to that is "No". They are selling orbits for a flat price plus upgrades.
Shotwell said it was too early to set precise prices for a reused Falcon 9, but that if the fuel on the first stage costs $1 million or less, and a reused first stage could be prepared for reflight for $3 million or so, a price reduction of 30 percent – to around $40 million – should be possible.
I think flown stages will be seen as less reliable for a while, until they rack up history.Bathtub curve applies only to mature reusable launch vehicle tech. Currently, while used stage certainly gets rid of most "infant mortality" issues, it still has largerly unknown "wear out" issues. So for some time (few years?) used rockets will be cheaper. After maturation of reusable rocket tech, price will reflect failure risk - cheaper at beginning and close to end of life, normal in middle. Launches of same stage/rocket in middle of life won't have same price anyway, as every customer and every launch has ever so slightly different needs, but that's different story.
QuoteThe original point that kicked of this chain was "Would reflight be a low cost" alternative? I think Elon has made comments that the answer to that is "No". They are selling orbits for a flat price plus upgrades. Reference, please? SpaceX (Elon, Gwynne) have been repeatedly quoted as saying reuse would allow them to cut F9 launch prices.
I don't think they are trying to market "Hey. Our used boosters get you 30% off".
Nothing in that quote states or even implies that the price of new stages will remain the same. It can and has been understood by some to mean that regular reflight of stages will permit an across the board price reduction of 30%. Reflight will permit price reductions compared to current prices, not necessarily compared to new booster prices at that time.
QuoteI don't think they are trying to market "Hey. Our used boosters get you 30% off".Except that's pretty much exactly what Gwynne said may happen in the quote I posted above. And telling customers they may get a 30% (or thereabouts) price cut for a reflight fits my loose definition of "marketing." If you're not planning to sell something, you don't tell your customers in public how much they may save by buying it.Not sure how you square that with a "fixed price per orbit" concept, but I will read any such quotes from Elon or Gwynne with interest if you can find them. Maybe that's a baseline price structure for launches of "new" F9's, before the discount for reflown stages.
SpaceX may not have much reason to lower prices right now. They already have incredibly low prices and a long manifest that they're trying as hard as they can to fulfill.Reuse will make it easier for them to fly out their current manifest, clear the schedule a bit, and give SpaceX incentive to lower cost even further to fill the manifest back up,As long as there's available market share that SpaceX hasn't gained and as long as SpaceX can keep up with their manifest (which they can't quite do, yet), there will be incentive to reduce prices a bit. But SpaceX will also be filling their manifest with their own launches.
I know this is off topic...Is there anyway that thread links posted could automatically show the name of the thread?