The average person can't see SpaceX's balance sheets, but their investors can... and they are lining up to throw money at SpaceX.
Does this account for the loss in payload mass from reusability?
Quote from: ccdengr on 04/18/2018 03:28 amDoes this account for the loss in payload mass from reusability?This is weak argument, since almost no payload is fungible. You launch whole satellites, not fuel or whatever.F9 was designed and continuously redesigned taking in account mass needed for reusability equipment so that it still can launch satellites to orbits desired by customers in certain payload range. In worst case, you can always launch rocket fully expendable, as SpaceX did more than few times.It is not like rocket can automatically launch everything possible just because it is expendable.
Quote from: Oberon_Command on 04/17/2018 11:17 pmDidn't Shotwell say that refurbishing the booster on the very first re-flight cost less than half of a new booster? Does this account for the loss in payload mass from reusability? Does it factor in all the money that was spent developing the reusability?
Didn't Shotwell say that refurbishing the booster on the very first re-flight cost less than half of a new booster?
Quote from: ccdengr on 04/18/2018 03:28 amQuote from: Oberon_Command on 04/17/2018 11:17 pmDidn't Shotwell say that refurbishing the booster on the very first re-flight cost less than half of a new booster? Does this account for the loss in payload mass from reusability? Does it factor in all the money that was spent developing the reusability?Reusuability does not decrease the mass of any payload. Either the rocket is capable of lifting the payload, or it is not. Reusability decreases the payload capasity of the rocketIf it not capable of lifting some payload in reusable mode, then do not recover the first stage from that flight.
I think this is proof that SpaceX is making significant progress on reuse.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 04/19/2018 01:28 amI think this is proof that SpaceX is making significant progress on reuse.It's proof at most that the Russians believe it is, or they believe that they may be able to reduce costs without reuse, it says nothing about if reuse saves money unless the Russians have inside info.
It's not proof, but it's another piece of evidence. The Russians have got quite a few competent, experienced rocket engineers, are the leaders in mass produced and low-cost expendable rockets, and have relatively low labor costs. If they believe they cannot compete with reusable rockets, their opinion surely counts for something.
Nothing is proven strictly from anything except maybe mathematics, y’all. We’re talking preponderance of evidence. For everything.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/19/2018 01:02 pmNothing is proven strictly from anything except maybe mathematics, y’all. We’re talking preponderance of evidence. For everything."Reuse is cheaper" boils down to "price of rocket A < price of rocket B", which is a simple mathematical relation and can be proven. Even in the case where "A" is the same rocket as "B", just with reuse. We simply need someone to buy both and tell us how much they paid...
...3. New Glenn is launching 400 constellation satellites in early 2020s for which any number of expendable launcher suppliers could have been selected, but weren't. OneWeb thinks reusable is cheaper.
Don't you need two groups competing using the same technology before the price of something goes down?
I'd take the bet right now except for 2 things:1. I think because it's crossing various governmental boundaries that it may be illegal in the US.
2. It'll be a fairer bet when it's all Block 5 boosters.
Quote from: scienceguy on 04/20/2018 04:23 pmDon't you need two groups competing using the same technology before the price of something goes down?No, not necessarily. A price/demand curve analysis frequently can cause a single supplier to lower costs - if that means they will sell more and have a greater profit.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/20/2018 04:33 pmQuote from: scienceguy on 04/20/2018 04:23 pmDon't you need two groups competing using the same technology before the price of something goes down?No, not necessarily. A price/demand curve analysis frequently can cause a single supplier to lower costs - if that means they will sell more and have a greater profit.Not at all, in fact. A supplier is unlikely to sell you two things for the same price if one costs them more than the other.