On Quora Jim Cantrell claims F9 booster re-use is primarily about increasing launch frequency to improve cash flow, as well as perfecting re-use technology for Mars:https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket#Claims very few boosters will re-used more than '3 or so' times, so seems to be ignoring (or doesn't believe?) SpaceX's claims about block 5 aim of 10 uses without refurbishment.
If you go through the R&D costs of developing a reusable launch vehicle, the opportunity costs (in terms of fuel used for return and the lost revenue opportunity for more payload to orbit) of returning the launcher first stage, and the costs of refurbishment between flights, generally accepted practice shows that you have to re-use the booster or launch vehicle 5–10 times before you make your money back if you account for all the costs.
Quote from: butters on 07/08/2017 10:21 pmULA plans (hopes?) to develop a rocket with substantially less performance than New Glenn, based on the same booster engine, and they only aspire to recover the engines, whereas Blue will recover the whole booster stage. Smart? More like the art of the possible, where the possible is clearly not sufficient.I actually don't understand what ULA is doing. Using an engine from BO plain does not make sense.When BO starts reliably launching their own LV, why on Earth would they continue to sell their engine to a competitor? Out of their heart goodness? Surely not. At best (for ULA), they would continue to sell it at a premium, much above their internal cost. At "not best", they just sink ULA whenever they want by simply refusing to prolong the contract.
ULA plans (hopes?) to develop a rocket with substantially less performance than New Glenn, based on the same booster engine, and they only aspire to recover the engines, whereas Blue will recover the whole booster stage. Smart? More like the art of the possible, where the possible is clearly not sufficient.
(There is a similar argument that a smaller cheaper expendable rocket could launch the same payload to the same orbit, but this ignores the fact that such a rocket doesn't exist and actually does have a real payload reduction - it can't use recovery margins in an off-nominal mission or to lift a bigger payload).
A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
Quote from: envy887 on 07/11/2017 02:44 pm(There is a similar argument that a smaller cheaper expendable rocket could launch the same payload to the same orbit, but this ignores the fact that such a rocket doesn't exist and actually does have a real payload reduction - it can't use recovery margins in an off-nominal mission or to lift a bigger payload).A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 07/14/2017 05:06 amA smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.How do you know the 1.1 was cheaper? I think it was said that production became more efficient with design changes.
Quote from: guckyfan on 07/14/2017 05:19 amQuote from: MikeAtkinson on 07/14/2017 05:06 amA smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.How do you know the 1.1 was cheaper? I think it was said that production became more efficient with design changes.I never said it was cheaper, just cheap. The point I was making is that the argument, that you could produce a smaller, cheaper non-reusable launcher, is directly contradicted by SpaceX. When they wanted to enhance F9 v1.1 they had three options, 1. basically leave it as is, just try and make it cheaper.2. improve performance, but leave as a non-reusable (thus saving a lot of money getting reusability working).3. the path they have taken.SpaceX with full access to cost, performance and reliability data decided that reusability was the lowest cost solution. So a direct apples to apples comparison shows that it is not possible to have a cheaper expendable rocket that can launch equivalent payloads, at least not in a design similar to F9.
The v1.0 was already small, and cheap enough as an expendable. SpaceX decided it would be cheaper per flight to make it bigger and reusable in v1.1, and they doubled down on that move with v1.2.
So I'd like to know how many times will the typical Falcon booster stage get re-used? How many flights in total can we expect from a typical Falcon booster? That's obviously going to be the biggest determinant on cost.So far I've heard people here say that a booster would likely only be re-flown a couple of times max - so basically 3 flights total for a booster. Musk and Bezos have thrown around the 747 analogy, saying that plane tickets would be a lot more expensive if you had to throw away the plane after each flight. Well, they'd still be pretty darn expensive if you have to throw away the plane after just 3 flights.Are there any plans to go beyond just a couple of re-flights, and have something that can fly, say 10 times?
I think someone from SX said that it would be max 3 flights for block 3 cores and about 10 flights(without major refurbishment) for block 5 cores.
How do the costs go up when making the vehicle more and more reusable (ie. increasing the re-flight capability)?Is there some magic number with an asymptote line, so that the costs skyrocket dramatically as you try to push the reusability (number of re-flights) beyond a certain point?
SpaceX with full access to cost, performance and reliability data decided that reusability was the lowest cost solution. So a direct apples to apples comparison shows that it is not possible to have a cheaper expendable rocket that can launch equivalent payloads, at least not in a design similar to F9.
Their long-term aim is at least 100 reflights of each booster core, and I heard this directly from the SpaceX VP of business development at the CRS-8 launch viewing on the OMB-II verandah.
Quote from: mvpel on 08/31/2017 06:56 pmTheir long-term aim is at least 100 reflights of each booster core, and I heard this directly from the SpaceX VP of business development at the CRS-8 launch viewing on the OMB-II verandah.Well so far they Shotwell on the Space Show said they are looking to do 3 launches off a booster and V5 will be good for 10 without major So either V5 will do that with a lot of refurb work above "inspection" or they are at least another generation to go from 10 to 100.