Any word on the payload? Has it completed tests? For those hoping for an October launch, it should be shipping out to the Cape in the next couple of weeks.
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
Quote from: mvpel on 08/31/2016 02:04 pmThe first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire planeNo, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense... QuoteIf we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now). Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40373.msg1569114#msg1569114
If we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now). Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.
Quote from: guckyfan on 08/31/2016 02:14 pmQuote from: mvpel on 08/31/2016 02:04 pmThe first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire planeNo, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.true, but that's because people don't expect 747s to fall apart after the first flight. Once it is expected that a rocket will last more than one launch, people may start to expect even the first flight to be cheaper because they will see it far more as a service (delivery to orbit) rather than a thing (a rocket which delivers something to orbit) that they are paying for.
IMO most importantly the value of flight 5 is not lower than flight 2. Cores will not launch if their safe operation is not ensured. So prices will not vary. Prices for first launches will be higher only as long as there are customers who insist on new cores and are willing to pay a higher price. Good for business when NASA for astronauts and DOD want new cores. It will give a constant supply of basically free cores for commercial flights.
Quote from: abaddon on 08/30/2016 04:38 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2016 04:20 pmQuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! )How about "...for less than $500 million..."I wonder if Hughes got a 30% discount from that rate for SBS-3 being the first payload on a re-flown orbiter.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2016 04:20 pmQuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! )How about "...for less than $500 million..."
QuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! )
Luxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
The price for a (USA) civil or foreign launch prior to 1988 was $38 million plus fees for capital facilities and insurance.
Both the over enthusiasm (SX fans) and under enthusiasm (Jim and various) are distractions.Reuse of boosters right now is about one and only one business item right now.Head of manifest. Next to fly.Because you're an unexpected schedule "catch up" (or "go ahead").Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.This means that your manifest clears faster, and you can afford a more congested manifest then before w/o cancellation worries.Screw the economics at the moment - they're too unclear. Even flight frequency is "too soon".But opportunistic "quick turn" launch ... is the next thing to happen. For this, you need "US surplus" as a strategic resource to match the reuse booster resource.Gradual phaseover here. Next will be flight frequency. Then an economic easing. Then the "hockey stick" effect starts to worry global launch providers.Then economic reuse.
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/31/2016 06:02 pmBecause instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month). a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/31/2016 06:02 pmBecause instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month). a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
Counter argument to Jim - some like SES want to horn in on Boeing's territory, so they can actually do more than one concurrently.
SpaceX to shift Florida launches to new pad after explosionhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-shift-florida-launches-pad-explosion-003208139--finance.html?ref=gsQuoteWith its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket.
With its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket.