It also implies there is something to apologise for
Quote from: AnalogMan on 11/16/2016 05:00 pmA couple of recent documents have just been listed on NTRS that may be of interest to readers of this thread. One is a conference paper and the other is the presentation slides that accompany it.Is It Worth It? - the Economics of Reusable Space TransportationAbstract...Abstracts usually include the conclusion; this one is pure tease (and long-winded at that). Would someone who's read the papers kindly provide a TL:DR. Many thanks.
A couple of recent documents have just been listed on NTRS that may be of interest to readers of this thread. One is a conference paper and the other is the presentation slides that accompany it.Is It Worth It? - the Economics of Reusable Space TransportationAbstract...
In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/31/2017 07:05 amIn the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Quote from: su27k on 04/01/2017 03:17 amActually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.Sounds right to me. It does contrast extremely with rocket development cost of other launch service providers. Maybe the whole development cost after the 1.0. That was 300 million $, right?
Quote from: su27k on 04/01/2017 03:17 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/31/2017 07:05 amIn the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.The performance upgrades where required for reusability. Basically all development after v1.0 was because parachute recovery failed.
I'm trying to understand the practical nature of the "100 fold decrease to overall coast" statement Musk made in the post-launch news conference for SES-10. So, have I done this right...If a baseline F9 cost $62M (SpaceX website) then to find the price after a 100 fold decrease, it's:62/x = 100 fold.Solving for x, I get 38.So a 100 fold reduction in cost leads to a new value of $38M for a flight-proven core after a $24M reduction.Have I done that right?
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 04/05/2017 02:40 pmI'm trying to understand the practical nature of the "100 fold decrease to overall coast" statement Musk made in the post-launch news conference for SES-10. So, have I done this right...If a baseline F9 cost $62M (SpaceX website) then to find the price after a 100 fold decrease, it's:62/x = 100 fold.Solving for x, I get 38.So a 100 fold reduction in cost leads to a new value of $38M for a flight-proven core after a $24M reduction.Have I done that right?I took a hundred fold reduction as meaning two orders of magnitude. Meaning 62m/100 = $620k or 1% of the original cost. But I guess it depends on the exact context of the quote.
Was the 100 fold reduction not applicable in the long term, rather than immediately?