Author Topic: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper  (Read 68962 times)

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #120 on: 05/20/2018 06:54 pm »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #121 on: 05/20/2018 07:10 pm »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

Quote
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624

So likely between $80M and low $90M.


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #122 on: 05/20/2018 07:33 pm »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #123 on: 05/21/2018 01:05 am »
What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #124 on: 05/21/2018 06:14 am »
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

I think the value is for 3 core RTLS. The post does not show separate numbers for 3 core RTLS and 2 core RTLS plus center core downrange landing on ASDS.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #125 on: 05/21/2018 06:24 am »
What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

The numbers in that thread are simply total crap. But now unfortunately those crappy numbers will be quoted and posted many times elsewhere :(


In that thread I tried to point out the faults in his calculations but he just kept keeping the original faulty numbers and ignored my points because I could not give "exact one better number".


(he used faulty calculations that give "exact" number, but I extrapolated with three different but better methods, each giving considerable higher (but different) number for FH reusable than his methods, and he just kept his original estimates even after I had pointed out the multiple flaws in them).


In reality fully 3-stick-reusable FH has at least 10% more capacity than fully expendable F9, but the difference slightly depends in the target orbit.

« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 09:42 am by hkultala »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #126 on: 05/21/2018 10:35 am »
In reality fully 3-stick-reusable FH has at least 10% more capacity than fully expendable F9, but the difference slightly depends in the target orbit.
It would be lovely to see actual calculations, but they are annoyingly hard.
The numbers under them are changing with block 5, which really doesn't help.

Offline Ultrafamicom

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #127 on: 05/21/2018 12:09 pm »
In 2017 IAC presentation a diagram shows FH has 31ton reusable capacity, unsure whether it is block3 or block5

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8746
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #128 on: 05/21/2018 11:51 pm »
Where does the first stage get more wear?  Launch or re-entry and landing?  If the latter is the case, there may come a time in a Block 5's career that it might be sold as an expendable rather than a re-furbish.  If it's a draw or the launch imparts more stress, then I don't think a customer would want to buy.  I doubt if we have enough knowledge to answer this question (yet)!
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #129 on: 05/22/2018 02:22 am »
Where does the first stage get more wear?  Launch or re-entry and landing?  If the latter is the case, there may come a time in a Block 5's career that it might be sold as an expendable rather than a re-furbish.  If it's a draw or the launch imparts more stress, then I don't think a customer would want to buy.  I doubt if we have enough knowledge to answer this question (yet)!
If their models and inspections show it can’t handle landing, it won’t get launched. That’s a failure waiting to happen. That’s my bet. I wouldn’t want to launch on a rocket they aren’t sure will survive landing because I’d be concerned it wouldn’t survive launch.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #130 on: 05/22/2018 01:38 pm »
Cost of the upper stages is the same regardless of F9 vs FH.

And I’ll be shocked if the price for expended F9 is lower than recoverable FH. It is in the hands of the customer, but SpaceX will price their options such that there is only one obvious choice.

I hope you're right, I've been thinking that must be their goal, to fly reuseable FH versus Expendable F9.  Although I'm sure they'd love to book an expendable FH.  Because that would be some mean payload.

The world could use a lot more FH launches.  That thing is a gorgeous beast.

Edit: Regarding the discussion on other vehicles.  Those that don't go reuseable will have to live on government funding and even then they will go away over time.  (I don't think SpaceX needs to say a word about SLS, they just need to fly FH and BFR and reality will take care of the rest.)
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 02:31 pm by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #131 on: 07/09/2019 11:53 am »

The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).


Reused F9 price is now down to $50m for NASA's IXPE:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #132 on: 07/10/2019 03:24 am »

The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).


Reused F9 price is now down to $50m for NASA's IXPE:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0
And that's a one-off NASA mission. It's possible someone with lower overhead and a need for a bunch more launches may be able to swing a better deal.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #133 on: 07/10/2019 01:14 pm »

The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).


Reused F9 price is now down to $50m for NASA's IXPE:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0
And that's a one-off NASA mission. It's possible someone with lower overhead and a need for a bunch more launches may be able to swing a better deal.
At some point in the nearish future, they have to start transitioning over from marginal cost of launch to 'what the market will bear' - if things do not go wrong.

Encouraging growth in Mars-related stuff, and space in general. With a vast capability overcapacity in your launcher, charging $5M for 150 tons and 1.5 tons seems unlikely.

Pricing is such a fun part of this, as will justifying it be.

I could see them desiring to price multiply retanked launches of cargo (including refuelling) to the moon surface at below the cost of one launch to GTO, for example, if it was to hardware they had the rights to later reproduce, and was appropriate for their ongoing goals.



Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #134 on: 07/10/2019 07:01 pm »

The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).


Reused F9 price is now down to $50m for NASA's IXPE:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.0
And that's a one-off NASA mission. It's possible someone with lower overhead and a need for a bunch more launches may be able to swing a better deal.
At some point in the nearish future, they have to start transitioning over from marginal cost of launch to 'what the market will bear' - if things do not go wrong.

Encouraging growth in Mars-related stuff, and space in general. With a vast capability overcapacity in your launcher, charging $5M for 150 tons and 1.5 tons seems unlikely.

Pricing is such a fun part of this, as will justifying it be.

I could see them desiring to price multiply retanked launches of cargo (including refuelling) to the moon surface at below the cost of one launch to GTO, for example, if it was to hardware they had the rights to later reproduce, and was appropriate for their ongoing goals.
That IXPE $50M price includes the NASA mission assurance paperwork of as much as $10M. So the commercial multi launch contracts could easily get a $40M per launch price.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #135 on: 07/11/2019 04:08 pm »
---------------------- UPDATE -----------------
Now that the first year of block 5 is done, we can re-look at this bet.   Here's how it would have gone so far.  I'd start by sending you the amount listed after each mission:

[....]
1056.1       SpX-17        -$30
1049.3       Starlink      -$40
1051.2       Radarsat      -$50
1057.2       STP-2         -$40   Core expended; not enough fuel for landing
1052.2       STP-2         -$60
1053.2       STP-2         -$70


There's an error for that last flight. If you are starting with -$50 and then add two recovered boosters (-$20) and one expended core (+$10), you should end up on -$60, not -$70.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #136 on: 07/11/2019 06:40 pm »
Also, Musk says he thinks 10 flights of a single booster are possible next year:

Quote
Musk: The first #Falcon9 Block 5 to achieve 10 flights will probably happen next year. "I think that's really a key milestone," he says

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994653260547088384

Of course, that doesn't cover what happens with all the other boosters. Several others could have multiple flights, though I think his forecast that any of them will reach 10 flights next year is overly optimistic.
Tangential... I am a huge reuse proponent and SpaceX amazing people but I am willing to bet that we do not see 10 flights of the same booster this year. ("next year" in a quote from last year). 5 maybe, but there probably are not enough flights on the manifest for 2019 even with the max starlink flights possible, unless they deliberately used the same booster over and over and over while letting others lie fallow.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #137 on: 07/11/2019 08:31 pm »
Also, Musk says he thinks 10 flights of a single booster are possible next year:

Quote
Musk: The first #Falcon9 Block 5 to achieve 10 flights will probably happen next year. "I think that's really a key milestone," he says

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994653260547088384

Of course, that doesn't cover what happens with all the other boosters. Several others could have multiple flights, though I think his forecast that any of them will reach 10 flights next year is overly optimistic.
Tangential... I am a huge reuse proponent and SpaceX amazing people but I am willing to bet that we do not see 10 flights of the same booster this year. ("next year" in a quote from last year). 5 maybe, but there probably are not enough flights on the manifest for 2019 even with the max starlink flights possible, unless they deliberately used the same booster over and over and over while letting others lie fallow.

OK, Elon over predicted.   Hmmm .... Let's just leave it at that.

I'm willing to bet that Elon's 10 flight prediction happens, but later than he guessed.

Offline Wudizzle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 158
  • Liked: 328
  • Likes Given: 330
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #138 on: 07/11/2019 08:36 pm »
Also, Musk says he thinks 10 flights of a single booster are possible next year:

Quote
Musk: The first #Falcon9 Block 5 to achieve 10 flights will probably happen next year. "I think that's really a key milestone," he says

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994653260547088384

Of course, that doesn't cover what happens with all the other boosters. Several others could have multiple flights, though I think his forecast that any of them will reach 10 flights next year is overly optimistic.
Tangential... I am a huge reuse proponent and SpaceX amazing people but I am willing to bet that we do not see 10 flights of the same booster this year. ("next year" in a quote from last year). 5 maybe, but there probably are not enough flights on the manifest for 2019 even with the max starlink flights possible, unless they deliberately used the same booster over and over and over while letting others lie fallow.

Perhaps not the best thread for this, but is this a reflection of change in Starlink timeline? Without Starlink launches, I'm not sure how he would have arrived at that number in the 2019 timeframe (or even close to it). Somewhere along the way they have to start launching at an unprecedented cadence if they are going to get Starlink operational. But aside from Starlink, the manifest doesn't seem to support getting to 10 in any sort of near future.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #139 on: 07/11/2019 09:14 pm »
OK, Elon over predicted.   Hmmm .... Let's just leave it at that.

I'm willing to bet that Elon's 10 flight prediction happens, but later than he guessed.
No bet. I am supremely confident it will. Just not in 2019.

Perhaps not the best thread for this, but is this a reflection of change in Starlink timeline? Without Starlink launches, I'm not sure how he would have arrived at that number in the 2019 timeframe (or even close to it). Somewhere along the way they have to start launching at an unprecedented cadence if they are going to get Starlink operational. But aside from Starlink, the manifest doesn't seem to support getting to 10 in any sort of near future.

Agree that his prediction might have been assuming more Starlink traffic this year than we currently see.

That said, this tangent I raised... kind of reinforces the point of the original bet. We are now wondering when the first B5 gets to 10. It's difficult to imagine SpaceX realistically getting to 10 reuses out of sheer stubbornness... it HAS to be saving them a lot of cost.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 09:16 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1