Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/07/2017 09:24 am>I want to understand the $30m price tag you estimated for a fully reusable FH. How is that calculated? It seems somewhat high to me, considering that Elon's goal is a price reduction of an order of magnitude or maybe even two orders of magnitude with full reusability.By my count, to construct a FH rocket costs say $60m for the centre core, upper stage and fairing, and say another $80m for the two side boosters. So let's call that $140m. >Except that they'll be making extensive use of flight proven stages for the FH side boosters, throwing your numbers way off. The FH maiden flight will use them.
>I want to understand the $30m price tag you estimated for a fully reusable FH. How is that calculated? It seems somewhat high to me, considering that Elon's goal is a price reduction of an order of magnitude or maybe even two orders of magnitude with full reusability.By my count, to construct a FH rocket costs say $60m for the centre core, upper stage and fairing, and say another $80m for the two side boosters. So let's call that $140m. >
True, but ISTM their amortized value for any given re-launch depends on how many times they've already flown. Flight #2 being a more valuable stage than flight #8.
In terms of when we might see significant price declines, Shotwell admits “it will take a few years” for the contracts to come in. However, SpaceX has invested a lot of money in this particular area. “We want to make sure we are fair about that cost. Frankly, the final spin on Falcon 9 will be rolling out a little bit later than mid-year, and that is really the stage that rolls in all the lessons learned on reusability that we have learnt to date. Those vehicles will be highly reusable — 10 times at least. When those vehicles are flying regularly, we will start seeing more pressure around the launch price side,” she adds.
Hat tip to gongora for bringing this to our attention in another thread. Interview with Gwynne Shotwell:http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/april-2017/shotwell-ambitious-targets-achievable-this-year/QuoteIn terms of when we might see significant price declines, Shotwell admits “it will take a few years” for the contracts to come in. However, SpaceX has invested a lot of money in this particular area. “We want to make sure we are fair about that cost. Frankly, the final spin on Falcon 9 will be rolling out a little bit later than mid-year, and that is really the stage that rolls in all the lessons learned on reusability that we have learnt to date. Those vehicles https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/Themes/nsf2/images/bbc/underline.gifwill be highly reusable — 10 times at least. When those vehicles are flying regularly, we will start seeing more pressure around the launch price side,” she adds.So, final version of F9 rolling out this summer, will be reusable at least 10x. But it will be a few years before SpaceX recoups their investment and can pass significant cost savings on to customers.
In terms of when we might see significant price declines, Shotwell admits “it will take a few years” for the contracts to come in. However, SpaceX has invested a lot of money in this particular area. “We want to make sure we are fair about that cost. Frankly, the final spin on Falcon 9 will be rolling out a little bit later than mid-year, and that is really the stage that rolls in all the lessons learned on reusability that we have learnt to date. Those vehicles https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/Themes/nsf2/images/bbc/underline.gifwill be highly reusable — 10 times at least. When those vehicles are flying regularly, we will start seeing more pressure around the launch price side,” she adds.
From the same VIA interview:"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.
Quote from: DOCinCT on 05/07/2017 04:10 pmFrom the same VIA interview:"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.If a Falcon 9 first stage costs $40 million to build, $5 million to refurbish between flights, but launches ten times, the aggregate cost to SpaceX per Falcon 9 becomes $85 million for ten first stage launches, plus second stage. SpaceX could keep a guestimated margin of $10 million per launch by charging $30 million. Barring an explosion in launch customers, I don't imagine they'll necessarily get that low, let alone try to go lower, lest they leave money on the table that they need for ITS.
...Everyone keeps going on about how SpaceX can drop the price dramatically and still make $10m profit per launch. But that's clearly not what they're saying. Both Musk and Shotwell have now repeatedly said that the effect on launch prices will not be significant until they have recovered their investment costs.Shotwell's latest interview above makes that even clearer. They are not going to drop the launch price to $30m to make a $10m profit. Instead, they are clearly indicating that at least for the forseeable future they are going to do something along the lines of dropping it to $55m or maybe at best $50m, and by implication try to make $30m profit per launch, or maybe even more.Which I think is exactly the right approach.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/07/2017 04:59 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 05/07/2017 04:41 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 05/07/2017 04:10 pmFrom the same VIA interview:"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.If a Falcon 9 first stage costs $40 million to build, $5 million to refurbish between flights, but launches ten times, the aggregate cost to SpaceX per Falcon 9 becomes $85 million for ten first stage launches, plus second stage. SpaceX could keep a guestimated margin of $10 million per launch by charging $30 million. Barring an explosion in launch customers, I don't imagine they'll necessarily get that low, let alone try to go lower, lest they leave money on the table that they need for ITS.I was about to respond to your original post. I see you've since clarified it to cast at least a little bit of doubt over the $30m estimate, but it is still held up as a target.And that's what I don't understand. Everyone keeps going on about how SpaceX can drop the price dramatically and still make $10m profit per launch. But that's clearly not what they're saying. Both Musk and Shotwell have now repeatedly said that the effect on launch prices will not be significant until they have recovered their investment costs.Shotwell's latest interview above makes that even clearer. They are not going to drop the launch price to $30m to make a $10m profit. Instead, they are clearly indicating that at least for the forseeable future they are going to do something along the lines of dropping it to $55m or maybe at best $50m, and by implication try to make $30m profit per launch, or maybe even more.Which I think is exactly the right approach.The $30 million figure is useful as a pragmatic (but unlikely to be realized) lower bound on Falcon 9 launch costs with first-stage reuse alone.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 05/07/2017 04:41 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 05/07/2017 04:10 pmFrom the same VIA interview:"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.If a Falcon 9 first stage costs $40 million to build, $5 million to refurbish between flights, but launches ten times, the aggregate cost to SpaceX per Falcon 9 becomes $85 million for ten first stage launches, plus second stage. SpaceX could keep a guestimated margin of $10 million per launch by charging $30 million. Barring an explosion in launch customers, I don't imagine they'll necessarily get that low, let alone try to go lower, lest they leave money on the table that they need for ITS.I was about to respond to your original post. I see you've since clarified it to cast at least a little bit of doubt over the $30m estimate, but it is still held up as a target.And that's what I don't understand. Everyone keeps going on about how SpaceX can drop the price dramatically and still make $10m profit per launch. But that's clearly not what they're saying. Both Musk and Shotwell have now repeatedly said that the effect on launch prices will not be significant until they have recovered their investment costs.Shotwell's latest interview above makes that even clearer. They are not going to drop the launch price to $30m to make a $10m profit. Instead, they are clearly indicating that at least for the forseeable future they are going to do something along the lines of dropping it to $55m or maybe at best $50m, and by implication try to make $30m profit per launch, or maybe even more.Which I think is exactly the right approach.
They don't have to. They have enough of a manifest to satisfy.
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions. I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
$30M in costs for a fully reusable FH or a partial reusable F9 (that is costs internal to SpaceX no profit added).NOTE the cost of the 1st stage manufacture is estimated at $25M.Also the all up costs (no profit) no reuse for an F9 is $53M add $9M for profit resulting in a price of $62M.F9 Partial reusable$15M for new US$4M for the refurbishment ($2M), recovery costs ($.5M), and amortization costs ($1.5M) over average of 20 flights for the stage's manufacture.$7M for the launch processing and launch. This includes mate and checkout, payload handling, operations, range fees, and prop. (NOTE this value comes from Ms Shotwell herself in a statement made a few years ago)$2M for the recovery and refurbishment of faring which includes the amortization of the faring cost manufacture.$2M slush margin for unexpected costs such as weather delays or other scrubs.Total Costs $30MFH Fully Reusable$5M for US refurbishment($3M), recovery ($.5M) and amoritization over 10 flights ($1.5M)$12M 3X for the refurbishment ($2M), recovery costs ($.5M), and amortization costs ($1.5M) over average of 20 flights for the stage's manufacture.$9M for the launch processing and launch. ($1M each extra for the two additioanal boosters). This includes mate and checkout, payload handling, operations, range fees, and prop. (NOTE this value comes from Ms Shotwell herself in a statement made a few years ago)$2M for the recovery and refurbishment of faring which includes the amortization of the faring cost manufacture.$2M slush margin for unexpected costs such as weather delays or other scrubs.Total Costs $30MOver time and at higher flight rates the Launch processing, refurbishment costs, and slush margin may be reduced for a reduction of almost up to $10M for fully reusable FH but only $5M for a partial reusable F9. Possibly getting the costs per flight to as low as $20M in 7 years from now 2024/25. This then would also make the use of the fully reusable FH cheaper per flight than the partial reusable F9: FH $20M vs F9 $25M.If you then add profit margin of only $5M to these high volume launches of the fully reusable FH, then the price per flight of up to 20mt to LEO becomes $25M or just $1,250/kg->$568/lb.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 05/07/2017 10:13 pmSo far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions. I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches. According to Shotwell, they are selling 7+ tons to subsync GTO on the Falcon 9.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/07/2017 07:39 pmThey don't have to. They have enough of a manifest to satisfy.Do they? According to Salo's launch schedule, Falcon 9 has 42 flights left for 2017 and 2018. That's quite a lot for any expendable launcher, but if SpaceX hits its reusable stride, it would seem that 2018 might still have some manifest availability.