Quote from: laszlo on 08/02/2016 12:18 pmSo far, while there are strong indications, everything involved with reusing an F9 is purely experimental. There is absolutely no evidence (yet) that it will both work and be economically viable. That won't happen until enough successful reflights are done to prove that it works and to be able to determine the actual financials.You're misusing the phrase "absolutely no evidence". You say "there are strong indications" in one sentence and "absolutely no evidence" in the next.Evidence is anything that tends to indicate something. It can be stronger or weaker. You seem to be claiming there is "absolutely no evidence" until the very strongest possible evidence is completely assembled.So, your use of the term "evidence" is inconsistent with the standard understanding of the term in the English language.So much argument could be avoided if people would just use the standard meanings of words.
So far, while there are strong indications, everything involved with reusing an F9 is purely experimental. There is absolutely no evidence (yet) that it will both work and be economically viable. That won't happen until enough successful reflights are done to prove that it works and to be able to determine the actual financials.
<snip> there is no evidence, just educated speculation about the actual cost of reuse.
Quote from: laszlo on 08/02/2016 04:46 pm<snip> there is no evidence, just educated speculation about the actual cost of reuse.Do you really believe that the folks at SpaceX have no evidence?Granted that you and I are just speculating -- they probably know to the dollar what it is now costing to get a used core back on the pad and are seeking ways to reduce each of those costs. Perfect knowledge of costs won't arrive until they have reflown cores many times, but they are well beyond no evidence.
And now they have evidence, not yet conclusive, that the engineering is also possible - they have landed stages, and they have re-tested the landed stages. So they have an awful LOT of evidence that reusability will work. What they don't have is CONCLUSIVE evidence which I guess they can only have when they actually relaunch. But to say there is no evidence is clearly inaccurate.
This is rather like the discussion we saw prior to SpaceX's first stage recoveries. I believe that once SpaceX re-flies a few F9 stages, the chorus from the Doubting Thomases will fade away right quick...
Floorspace for stages is one thing, but remember also that a F9R needs only 10% of the engine manufacturing capacity of an expendable F9- so where is all that extra capacity going to go?Also, my guess is that the first few reflown cores may only fly two or three times before lessons learned make them obselete and they are retired favour of more robust vehicles.
Shotwell: “a lot of interest” from customers on flying on reused Falcon 9. May fly two of them this year. #smallsat
Given the new developments. The info that the engines of the test core had minor modifications to the present production status. The info that the insurance companies are willing to raise their premiums only moderately. They are now setting up the test core for more firings. They expect two launches of used bosters soon, maybe this year.They may get into the situation, that next year demand on used cores, from customers who want to change their contracts from new to reused, will exceed their capacity until they have a workshop ready with a rocket washing facility and for recoating of thrust structure and interstage. Next year the HIF at LC-39A will be busy with FH and commercial crew and will no longer be availabe to work on used boosters.That's assuming of course that they have no failures on their first two reflights.
Quote from: dorkmo on 08/01/2016 09:10 pmi guess another behind the scenes question is "how much does the insurance cost for a reused booster?"Insurance rates for Falcon 9 dropped surprisingly fast to near Ariane levels. I don't think it will take many successful flights for F9R to reach similar values. Big question is the first reflight.
i guess another behind the scenes question is "how much does the insurance cost for a reused booster?"
There also was “no material change” in the insurance rate compared to using a new Falcon 9 rocket, indicating insurers’ confidence in the launch vehicle, Halliwell said.
I prefer to think about it this way:SpaceX wants to get 40-80 launches per year out of Falcons, and many of those will be Falcon Heavies. No way in heck that's feasible with their current manufacturing capacity (demonstrated ~7/year, maybe capable of 15-30 cores without expansion) without significant reuse.It's the other side of the coin. Reuse as a way to dramatically enhance flight rate given a fixed manufacturing capacity.