Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/15/2016 06:33 pmThe current price is for new core, and SpaceX reserves the right to recover that core. The current price is for a launch service for payloads up to 5.5mT to GTO. It doesn't say anything about the type of core.
The current price is for new core, and SpaceX reserves the right to recover that core.
Assuming SpaceX is totally serious about their reuse plans and that the booster stages are actually capable of many reflights (i.e. more than just 3 or 4), they'll have to stop differentiating between "new" and "previously flown" boosters.
There just aren't enough missions on their current manifest that will require expended stages.
How large a booster fleet do they need? They'll move production to upper stages and only need a few boosters to make up for failed landings and fleet retirement as booster flight limits are reached.
The current price is for a launch service for payloads up to 5.5mT to GTO. It doesn't say anything about the type of core. Assuming SpaceX is totally serious about their reuse plans and that the booster stages are actually capable of many reflights (i.e. more than just 3 or 4), they'll have to stop differentiating between "new" and "previously flown" boosters.
Most importantly, it is my opinion that the base price will be based on the market and their strategic objectives and not specifically a reflection of the launch cost.
That would be a change from how they price today, where so far they have offered extremely stable public pricing.
That would be a change from how they price today, where so far they have offered extremely stable public pricing. And for reusability to really catch on I think the pricing of their services needs to be predictable, since it is the combination of lower pricing and certainty that the prices won't rise that will allow companies to test out new products and services that take years to develop and get ready for launch.If SpaceX is perceived to have prices that could rise unpredictably, I don't think the market will expand fast enough to need or use a fleet of reusable rockets - not when satellite owners will still want to keep other launch providers busy enough so that SpaceX doesn't become a monopoly (which no one should want).My $0.02
If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
Quote from: AncientU on 08/19/2016 12:48 am If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.If SpaceX soon starts reflying stage one often, they will be pad and processing-constrained, not production-constrained. But without a system that lets them fly weekly or more often, they can't drop prices all that much.
Quote from: WmThomas on 08/19/2016 11:05 pmQuote from: AncientU on 08/19/2016 12:48 am If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.If SpaceX soon starts reflying stage one often, they will be pad and processing-constrained, not production-constrained. But without a system that lets them fly weekly or more often, they can't drop prices all that much.They've shown a 2 week turnaround on a single pad and so far have maintained about 1 launch per month steady state. Once they have their 4 pads running at the same pace and can do test-firings on the pad for reused stages, I see no reason why they couldn't fly once or twice a week with all their pads combined.
...All you know is that the costs have been expended to build, test, qualify, integrate, launch and recover a vehicle. Note that "recover" cost. More than an ELV.For all you know, they could have a financial model that batches into, say, 100 launches, with a phase in of reuse, where a part of the "reuse to come" has already been part of the LV provider's embedded fixed cost....Again, not an enthusiast here but a businessman with pragmatics. You do know it is a business that is very pragmatic ...
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/14/2016 05:12 pm...All you know is that the costs have been expended to build, test, qualify, integrate, launch and recover a vehicle. Note that "recover" cost. More than an ELV.For all you know, they could have a financial model that batches into, say, 100 launches, with a phase in of reuse, where a part of the "reuse to come" has already been part of the LV provider's embedded fixed cost....Again, not an enthusiast here but a businessman with pragmatics. You do know it is a business that is very pragmatic ...As you say, it's a pragmatic business. Why would they leave money on the table (they could certainly charge more and still have more payloads than they can launch) and at the same time eat the cost of building, flying, recovering, and reusing the vehicle? That's bleeding money both ways for the last 5 years, with no end in sight.
I would expect the opposite... prices could fall unpredictably. They are 'over achieving' on recovery, and reuse with little refurb appears in the near future. If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
In this environment, companies could fairly confidently test new products and services. As capital expenditures decrease (SES planning for example), a virtuous cycle may be established.
On the other hand, if you are competing in this launch market, investments in next generation of launchers (like Ariane 6 or Vulcan planning for a halving of 2010-2015 prices by 2020-2025) will always be behind the curve.
How does the already announced reduced prices for rides on reused boosters fit into this financial model? If reuse is already costed in, there shouldn't be room to drop prices.
You think launch ops currently cost upwards of $30 million expended on every mission? That seems pretty high to me. And they would be eating most of that cost if hardware is $50 to 60 million (which Elons says it does) and they are only charging about $65 million for a commercial launch.
The $19M reduction advertised by GS indicates that first stage cost minus retrieval/refurbishment equals that figure. Assuming rework costs are $3-5M, the first stage hardware costs are $22-24M -- let's use $24M (40% or so of the launch price). The first stage is quoted at 75% of the F9 hardware costs. Entire F9 would then cost $32M. This leaves $30M-ish for all other operations plus profit.
Our pricing right now assumes no reusability. None of our prices are contingent on that. Any reusability we're able to achieve would only allow us to reduce prices from where they are today. The more often we're able to fly and the more often we're able to reuse the stages and the less work they require between flights, the lower the costs can be. The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today.