For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/19/2017 04:50 pmFor your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.It's even better than it looks - there's a typo in the table. The SpaceX entry should be 2684 $/kg, not 2864.This is immediately clear when you ask how Proton can be comparable. They payload is 23,000 vs 22,800, or about 1% more. But the cost is more than 1% higher. So at least one of the numbers must be wrong, and it's SpaceX.
Intel 35 likely paid less than 63 mil. Because they contracted the flight before the price was 62.2. If you have a source that confirms a higher price then please share it.
This has started trending OT for this thread. I suggest that the discussion of the LV pricing comparisons and how that involves competition between providers should move to this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39688.msg1714441#msg1714441 where there is already a discussion going related to the GAO report that is also inline with that threads topic.
Quote from: Flying Beaver on 03/28/2017 08:55 pm Personaly. 15 years untill old faithful becomes obsolete. It will fly much longer. there isn't going to be something to replace it unless the new thing has wings.
Personaly. 15 years untill old faithful becomes obsolete.
Much has been made of the risks surrounding Elon Musk's stated determination to move all resources to the BFR but I wonder if that statement is more to motivate his workers than anything else.