Author Topic: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper  (Read 68957 times)

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2040
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #60 on: 04/18/2018 10:44 pm »
The average person can't see SpaceX's balance sheets, but their investors can... and they are lining up to throw money at SpaceX.
Not just investors, NASA and other gov agencies also take a pretty deep look at the books to make sure a large contractor can be trusted to support future missions. According to them, SpaceX has always made a healthy profit.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #61 on: 04/18/2018 11:40 pm »
Does 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.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #62 on: 04/19/2018 12:22 am »
Does 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.
Yes, plus the marginal cost to build it a little bigger than would otherwise be needed in order to account for recovery margins is small compared to the cost of the rocket. Conservatively that marginal cost has to be less than $5 million and recovery saves you the whole booster, which is 4-5 times that cost or more. Spend an extra 20% to get the first 80% back? Yes please.

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 #63 on: 04/19/2018 01:28 am »
I think this is proof that SpaceX is making significant progress on reuse.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/russia-appears-to-have-surrendered-to-spacex-in-the-global-launch-market/

Russia is tapping out, who's next?

How far they get down the road of rapid and full reuse, we get a front row seat to finding out.  I don't know that they can ever get to the point that something like a BFR flies every 24 hrs. 

But over time and continuous refinement I bet they can fly these birds a lot.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #64 on: 04/19/2018 06:37 am »
Didn'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 rocket

If it not capable of lifting some payload in reusable mode, then do not recover the first stage from that flight.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #65 on: 04/19/2018 06:45 am »
Didn'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 rocket

If it not capable of lifting some payload in reusable mode, then do not recover the first stage from that flight.
Yeah....If you plan to make a living out of correcting other people's language, you might want to stock up on MREs.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #66 on: 04/19/2018 06:49 am »
I 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.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2018 06:50 am by speedevil »

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #67 on: 04/19/2018 12:08 pm »
I 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.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #68 on: 04/19/2018 12:43 pm »
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.

It could also be that they believe reuse is irrelevant, because they can't compete even if SpaceX is not saving money with reuse.

Given Blues belated offering whenever it arrives, and the ones from ULA and ATK, as well as Ariane and, the expansion of chinese/indian launchers in the next decade, it doesn't take SpaceX being able to save money with reuse to make them back out of the market.

I was mainly objecting on principle, because the opinion of a third party doesn't prove anything strictly.

The russian proposals are far enough out that they'll be facing the whole pile of other launchers in the market, with a new launcher, with known quality problems going in that they need to fix.
Advancing those plans would take lots of money, and continuing with them begins to look like trying to pretend your costly fallacy isn't sinking.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #69 on: 04/19/2018 01:02 pm »
Nothing is proven strictly from anything except maybe mathematics, y’all. We’re talking preponderance of evidence. For everything.
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 envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #70 on: 04/19/2018 04:48 pm »
Nothing 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... :D

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #71 on: 04/19/2018 05:16 pm »
Nothing 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... :D

A few data points:
1. The only place you can buy both is from SpaceX.  Reusable is cheaper.
2. SpaceX is launching a constellation of 4,425 satellites -- and using reusable boosters (until they have a fully-reusable BFR/BFS flying).  Unless they are into wasting their own money, reusable is cheaper.
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.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2018 05:36 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #72 on: 04/19/2018 06:58 pm »
...
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.

OneWeb also has contracts on 3 different expendable launchers - they only care what Blue Origin is charging them, not whether NG is reused.

Blue obviously thinks reuse is cheaper, but they only have proven it for suborbital flights.

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 #73 on: 04/20/2018 03:39 pm »
To a certain extent this thread should be about the bet or bets rather than a rehash of the entire argument. As some other posters have said, at this point, the question is pretty much settled, based on preponderance of evidence, that reusability is better because it gives higher cadence, better research opportunities, likely higher quality, and lower costs. Some don't accept this, which is fine. But the point of the thread is not to rehash. That's boring. The point of the thread is to ask those who don't accept it to put their money where their mouth is. All in good fun of course,  but that's the point.

Thanks.
"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 scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #74 on: 04/20/2018 04:23 pm »
Don't you need two groups competing using the same technology before the price of something goes down?
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #75 on: 04/20/2018 04:33 pm »
Don'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.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #76 on: 04/20/2018 04:50 pm »
In the interest of keeping this thread more about the betting, there have been 2 posters so far that argued reusability isn't cheaper. (unless I missed something) One didn't acknowledge the bet, but the other had reasons for not taking it.

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.
Some basic research on betting laws shows that while the laws are somewhat murky, there is generally a difference between betting and taking bets. Laws about bets are intended for casinos and such that arrange bets and take a cut of the profits. Here is an article about it. Basically there is no legal problem with engaging in bets like this. While the laws are not perfectly clear cut, one reason they haven't been clarified is that no one would bother prosecuting a bet like this, so no one has seen a need to explicitly clarify that it is ok.

2. It'll be a fairer bet when it's all Block 5 boosters.
The bet explicitly only applies to Block 5 boosters. There is no benefit to you for waiting for Block 5 to be regularly used before taking it, because in the case that they change their minds about Block 5 (not likely for many reasons) then it means that you get the benefit of the initial payment without long term liability for them using Block 5.

Of course if you think that Block 5 might actually work as advertised, and you are waiting to see how the first flights go before deciding to take the bet, that just shows your doubt of reusability isn't that strong. Otherwise no reason not to take the bet now. The early Block 5 flights are the most likely to have issues so better for you to bet now than later.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #77 on: 04/20/2018 05:37 pm »
Don'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.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #78 on: 04/20/2018 06:15 pm »
Don'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.

I think we are talking past each other.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #79 on: 04/20/2018 06:29 pm »
How about the following non-monetary, slightly modified version of the bet above?

For every first launch of a Block 5 booster I’ll allocate a 6-pack of beer to the other party of the bet. Every re-launch of a Block 5 booster a single beer is allocated to me by the other party of the bet. In a couple years, we’ll see whose beer garden is better stocked for a party.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0