The launcher glut deserves more attention than its given, over the last 10 years there has been on average 76 launches per year, of which 40 to 50 are commercial. Reusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense while India and China are bringing new lower cost systems to market. Clearly lowering the price to orbit will spur demand, but that takes time. Ariane and maybe ILS look to have the most to lose, Ariane against lower costs, while ILS face a more reliable competitor.
Plus the Raptor engines that SpaceX are planning on building seem a lot better than the Blue Orgin as they have close to 4 times the amount of thus that the BE-4 is going to have.
The launcher glut deserves more attention than its given, over the last 10 years there has been on average 76 launches per year, of which 40 to 50 are commercial.
Reusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...
...while India and China are bringing new lower cost systems to market.
Clearly lowering the price to orbit will spur demand, but that takes time.
Ariane and maybe ILS look to have the most to lose, Ariane against lower costs, while ILS face a more reliable competitor.
QuoteReusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...I'm with Lar on this, that math is not correct.
Quote from: Oli on 11/14/2017 03:39 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2017 10:05 pmQuoteReusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...I'm with Lar on this, that math is not correct.~50 launches per year is pretty much the number everybody has come up with who has done the math. Starting with the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle.Even before that. Von Braun's team studied Saturn 1 first stage recovery before it was even named "Saturn". The answer was similar. What has changed is that SpaceX uses vertical landing recovery rather than Saturn's parachute plus ocean landing rocket recovery. There is still a number, but it is likely a different number. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2017 10:05 pmQuoteReusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...I'm with Lar on this, that math is not correct.~50 launches per year is pretty much the number everybody has come up with who has done the math. Starting with the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle.
~50 launches per year is pretty much the number everybody has come up with who has done the math. Starting with the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle.
Personally I think that number is somewhat lower for SpaceX because Falcon can fly in expendable and reusable mode, serving different markets.
Without first stage recovery, SpaceX could do the same missions with a "Falcon 7". That's 40 fewer Merlin engines each year to build/test/integrate/clean/inspect/refurbish compared to Falcon 9 (20 flights per year example). Thus, SpaceX doesn't even start to break even until it recovers and re-flies at least five first stages (45 engines recovered and reflown), as I see things. That doesn't include the costs of recovery, recovery development, etc., but I suspect that it gives a clue about where the crossover point might start to appear. My guess is they have to fly used stages on at least half the flights in this 20-launch example to give the concept a chance to pay off. - Ed Kyle
I don't believe the 1B development cost for recovery/reuse. I think Elon just threw that out there, and it represents not just that but a goodly fraction of the total F9 development cost.Also I think the "wasted capacity, the rocket is bigger than it needs to be" is a canard. As discussed before. The cost difference for a 30% smaller but otherwise identical is not going to be 30%. Far less.... because you have the same engineering operations, the same assembly steps, and so forth. The only cost differences are in the margins, things like material (a very small fraction of the total) and slightly more expensive transport costs because your vehicle is a bit longer, and propellant (again, a very small fraction of the total)... Ed is making the same mistake Dr. Sowers did.
Sorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about?
My take is that one would compare an equally-capable expendable system against the partly recoverable system. An equally-capable expendable Falcon 9 wouldn't need to be as heavy or tall at launch, wouldn't need as many engines on the first stage, etc. It would be cheaper to build and cheaper to launch than the recoverable Falcon 9.
Recovery costs not just for its $1 billion development and for its drone ship and recovery navy crew and for refurbishment, but also for the lost capability given up each time a recovery profile is flown.
We're at a fork in the road. You can use technologies to make cheaper expendables, or use to make more expensive reusables. (SX kinda confuses this a bit in having a bit from both worlds.)Ed's world is the former, AncientU/Lar's world is the latter.Ed will be right if you don't find much in the way of significant new uses/applications for space.AncientU/Lar will be right if they do find such.Ed can't be proved wrong and AncientU/Lar right if it isn't tried, ergo he has the easy win if he says there's no point.
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 11/14/2017 02:43 pmSorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about? Is there something I'm missing?My take is that one would compare an equally-capable expendable system against the partly recoverable system. An equally-capable expendable Falcon 9 wouldn't need to be as heavy or tall at launch, wouldn't need as many engines on the first stage, etc. It would be cheaper to build and cheaper to launch than the recoverable Falcon 9. Recovery costs not just for its $1 billion development and for its drone ship and recovery navy crew and for refurbishment, but also for the lost capability given up each time a recovery profile is flown. Recovery has an annual cost. At some point the savings of re-flying stages makes up for that cost. My guess is that SpaceX hasn't crossed that threshold just yet. - Ed Kyle
Sorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about? Is there something I'm missing?
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 11/14/2017 09:53 pmThe thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.You can't just ignore economies of scale.An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive. Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years. If the production cost of a rocket drops by x% with every doubling of the production rate, you can realize big savings from getting the production rate up from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 etc.Bottom line: With 1 launch per year reusability will not pay off, of that I'm 100% certain. With 50 it might, because you still get to make 5-10 rockets a year, which gives you reasonable economies of scale (assuming 10-5 uses).