Fascinating that we need an interpretation of whenever Elon says something, its as if he is speaking a different language. Perhaps it's some "Martian dialect".. Just sayin'...
The SpaceX website advertises the cost of a F9 missions at $61.2 million. Presumably, that means that it costs far less to build the rocket. I thought Musk said that the construction cost was $16 million, but this could be mistaken.
Is $1.44 million per engine a reasonable amount?
I understand that the cost of the engines is typically 90% of the total cost to build a rocket.
I don't think that's true. ULA has a pie chart of cost breakdown of Atlas 401, it shows 1st stage engine is about 60% of the 1st stage cost, and 2nd stage engine is about 25% of the 2nd stage cost.
Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M. So something's gotta give.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/11/2016 09:55 pmWell if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M. So something's gotta give.It's an Atlas slide. Why would you assume F9 has identical cost breakdowns? It's a completely different vehicle.
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different.
QuoteBecause apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different. I'd be more inclined to agree if you were talking about *mass* ratios, but you're not.You're talking about *cost* ratios of completely different components on a completely different rocket. How is the cost of one RD-180 related to the cost of nine M1D's? Not to mention different production processes for tanks, etc.Apples and oranges.
The long term reusability strategy that gets the F9 below $10 million has to include keeping the fixed costs low and upping the frequency of launches significantly. Reusing stages will help keep their fixed costs close to what they are now while upping their revenue and making better use of their facilities and capabilities.
All of this trying to reinterpret Elon Musk's comment about Falcon 9 costing $60M is silly. Why would he publicly state what their internal cost is? It cost's Spacex about $60M to build and launch a rocket when you include the profit margins their business model allows for.
The comment was made in context of the gains from reusability. When they reuse a stage a significant portion of the approximately 60% that is spent on first stage manufacturing won't have to be repeated. They know they need $200k for fuel, plus some refurb cost and increased profit. The final number is still likely to be pretty low.
Also, on the engine cost, and other parts, don't forget the high material prices for stuff like Inconel and the high cost of machine time for manufacturing. The cost of maintenance and depreciation on some of those machines used in engine production could easily compete with the salary for the workers that likely tend to several of them at once.
The real question is how close to gas and go do we think they will be able to get? They certainly seem to be able to test fire them at will with little consequences. The magnitude of the refurb cost will matter much more then how much it actually costs to manufacture a first stage.
All of this trying to reinterpret Elon Musk's comment about Falcon 9 costing $60M is silly. Why would he publicly state what their internal cost is? It cost's Spacex about $60M to build and launch a rocket when you include the profit margins their business model allows for.The comment was made in context of the gains from reusability. When they reuse a stage a significant portion of the approximately 60% that is spent on first stage manufacturing won't have to be repeated. They know they need $200k for fuel, plus some refurb cost and increased profit. The final number is still likely to be pretty low.
I'm finding the reading of $60M as the cost to 'build' only rather odd. When you pay to have a house built that pays for the materials, the planning permission, the archeological survey, the builders salaries, (which would include the building companies premises and corporation costs) as well as a multitude of other things. Same applies to rockets. That $60Ms going to include a lot of SpaceX running costs. Not just the materials costs, but labour, launch costs, design costs, factory running costs, EM's salary etc.
The equation for reuse cost savings is cost of manufacture of a non-reusable stage> (cost of manufacture of a reusable stage/number of uses) + ((number of uses-1)*Cost of refurbishment/number of uses)Many of the assumptions is that refurbishment would cost around $10M. But what we are currently witnessing from the first datapoint is something a lot less than $10M probably a lot closer to $2M.What that would mean is that even at only 2 flights it would be cheaper, almost 25% cheaper. At $10M refurbishment costs for a stage costing $20M for the reusable stage vs $16M for a non-reusable stage (note I don't think there is that much difference in the added systems and design to make the basic F9 into a reusable F9), use would need to be about 4. Its all a matter of assumptions of the % of manufacture costs that refurbishment costs would be and just how much more expensive it would be to build a reusable stage vs a non-reusable one. In order for 10 uses to reach break even point assumes that a reusable stage costs significantly more than that of a non-reusable one to manufacture and the refurbishment costs are greater than 50% of the cost to manufacture a non-reusable stage. I don't think those assumptions are applicable to the F9. The additional costs looks to be about 10% increase in manufacture costs and the refurbishment costs at no more than 20%. This means that no matter how many uses occur even if it is only 2, the result is a price reduction over that of a non-reusable version of an F9.