Threads get locked partly because people get on hobbyhorses about things and try to drag discussion off topic repeatedly. There are other reasons but that's one.
That's not exactly what he meant and it's been overcome by events. More importantly, we have had many many threads on the economics of resource exploitation. This isn't one of them. See above.
And it shouldn't take long to reach that point of supply and demand meeting. SpaceX's notional $20M price reduction for reuse puts an F9 flight at around $40M, which is cheaper than a Pegasus, for goodness sake.
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.
I took the 50% to be a "first time only" number, cheaper because of the possible risk associated with the first re-flight, not a desired price for all launches with re-flown stages.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/26/2016 11:39 amSo maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.We surely don't have perfect visibility to SpaceX's pricing strategy. It's not outside the realm of possibility that SpaceX says "45M is the price. And we're not budging on that. BUT because we love you, SES, you can have the first one for 30, and we'll make up the 15M short by charging you 50 each for the next three"[1] or something... .who knows. Or maybe they'll just give SES that price once. Or maybe it's all public posturing. But I think you're spot on in saying that if people are posturing or negotiating, that it's very unlikely that the first relaunch will be boilerplate. All parties are already on record as saying that isn't the plan...1 - Notional numbers
James Dean on Twitter:SpaceX on next landing attempt: booster "will be subject to extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely."https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean
I'm not a salesman but I have found that it's hard to raise prices if you offer a lower 'get to know us' rate.
This quote is from the JCSAT-14 - May 5, 2016 - DISCUSSION thread:Quote from: WBY1984 on 05/03/2016 02:35 pmJames Dean on Twitter:SpaceX on next landing attempt: booster "will be subject to extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely."https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdeanThis makes me curious. When SpaceX has gotten a few more returned stages under its belt, presumably they will have a better understanding of how likely, statistically, it will be that they can recover a first stage on future launches.So if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?
So if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?
snip...Out of curiosity, how possible is it that in the future they might have some system where every time a stage gets successfully re-used everybody who's previously flown on that particular stage gets a certain amount of money back (or a discount for their next launch?) so that by the end of the stage's life - however many re-uses that may be - every user has effectively paid the same amount for their use of the stage including initial manufacturing, upkeep and refurb costs for the whole stage lifetime? This would probably get a bit complicated because of all the money changing hands for every re-use but it seems to me that it's probably the fairest way to split the launch costs assuming equal reliability and value between new and used stages etc.
Quote from: Tuts36 on 05/03/2016 04:09 pmSo if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?I'd think that the whole rebate idea is probably the thing they are most likely to do, especially in the early stages of re-use when everything is still uncertain, and it's not known whether a stage will definitely be re-used for revenue-earning missions, dissected or tested to destruction etc.Out of curiosity, how possible is it that in the future they might have some system where every time a stage gets successfully re-used everybody who's previously flown on that particular stage gets a certain amount of money back (or a discount for their next launch?) so that by the end of the stage's life - however many re-uses that may be - every user has effectively paid the same amount for their use of the stage including initial manufacturing, upkeep and refurb costs for the whole stage lifetime? This would probably get a bit complicated because of all the money changing hands for every re-use but it seems to me that it's probably the fairest way to split the launch costs assuming equal reliability and value between new and used stages etc.
I think that ultimately SpaceX will price launches based on the likelihood of the rocket continuing to exist to live out whatever amortization schedule evolves.
Every user is buying a service. If that service comes with more or less risk, there may be a price adjustment. But if you're assuming equal reliability between new and used, then there is no difference in risk and thus no adjustment to price.The price adjustments will be driven by the service provided. How much mass, to what orbit, with how much lead time, what quantity of launches, what integration services, and any special services.
Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.
Quote from: Lar on 04/26/2016 02:56 amNot sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.All of the appropriate parties have been saying this, but I wonder if it is wise.Then again, in the event of a LOM on a reused booster, it probably has the same effect on SpaceX launches regardless of payload. That's something that hasn't been discussed enough, IMHO. Specifically: what is the risk to SpaceX if the reused booster fails? I don't think you can handwave it away as "but it was reused". You probably need to stand down the fleet and investigate the failure as if it were a normal failure on a new booster. What if the issue wasn't the reuse but something that might happen on a new flight, after all? Figuring out that it was due to reuse might be challenging.I'd hate to see SpaceX lose a reused booster and have a similar impact to the CRS-7 LOM. Of course, they're going to do it, because they are bold where I am not...
Then again, in the event of a LOM on a reused booster, it probably has the same effect on SpaceX launches regardless of payload. That's something that hasn't been discussed enough, IMHO. Specifically: what is the risk to SpaceX if the reused booster fails? I don't think you can handwave it away as "but it was reused". You probably need to stand down the fleet and investigate the failure as if it were a normal failure on a new booster. What if the issue wasn't the reuse but something that might happen on a new flight, after all? Figuring out that it was due to reuse might be challenging.I'd hate to see SpaceX lose a reused booster and have a similar impact to the CRS-7 LOM. Of course, they're going to do it, because they are bold where I am not...
Highly unlikely. Every user is buying a service. If that service comes with more or less risk, there may be a price adjustment. But if you're assuming equal reliability between new and used, then there is no difference in risk and thus no adjustment to price.The price adjustments will be driven by the service provided. How much mass, to what orbit, with how much lead time, what quantity of launches, what integration services, and any special services.
Those two customers will pay the full price for the boosters and service for commercial customers has the needed boosters basically for free.
Falcon cores will be under scrutiny initially as they are reused, but that scrutiny will be based on the idea that a reused core is at higher risk than a new core. If they have an early reuse failure I don't see it grounding the new cores automatically, but I see it seriously delaying when clients get/want the opportunity to launch on a reused core.