Author Topic: With Block 5, SpaceX to increase launch cadence and lower prices  (Read 44101 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-increase-launch-cadence-lower-prices/

By Michael Baylor

(with NSF photos from Brady and Marek)

Hosting in SpaceX General, but leaving a placeholder in SpaceX Reusability, as it would work in both sections.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Ed, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:09 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Doesitfloat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Detroit MI
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 197
From the Spacex website :" SpaceX offers competitive pricing for its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch services. Modest discounts are available, for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. "

To me sounds like like any shipping company.  They offer a discount if you buy more.  The same way FedEX charges me more to send my brother a rubber chicken than they charge my company to send one of our customers a rubber chicken. :-\

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Liked: 4097
  • Likes Given: 2770
Excellent article. Boils down very well the info gained from the Musk press conference before the latest launch.

I liked the short format compared to the usual longer format where the last part is a re-hash of earlier articles.

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815
Couple of things occur to me about the same booster launching twice in 24 hours:

1. It is quite possible that the eastern range will do it's own 2 in 24 before Falcon 9 does it.

2. Block 5 may be capable of 2 in 24, but afaik no pad is, so I guess it will have to use 39A and 40

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
Ed, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.

Caleb Henry of Space News, who wrote the article I referenced, actually asked the question that triggered this answer from Elon, yet Caleb interpreted it as a early-user discount rather than an actual long-term, official price reduction. 

If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches.

 - Ed Kyle

That might be a reasonable expectation. FYI, the full question and answer looked like this:


Caleb Henry, SpaceNews: Hey Elon. Question about the price range that you talked about long term for the Falcon 9. You mentioned five to six million dollars. When do you project being able to provide those prices?

Elon Musk: Yeah. I do want to emphasize that those are long term marginal cost of flight. So those aren't prices, they're margin cost of flight, long term. Meaning it would take, I don't know, three years or so to get there. And then we are going to need to, we still have a bunch of fixed costs to cover, that need to be divided over that number of flights. And we need to recover the development costs of recovery. And pay for BFR. And pay for the Starlink constellation. So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.  ...

(taken from this transcript)

« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 07:52 pm by dglow »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1016
10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).

Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).

Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
Am wondering about the claim in this article that "Due to the Block 5’s reusability, SpaceX has lowered the standard price of a Falcon 9 launch from $62 million to about $50 million."

According to Space News, the reduction was "discounts to some early customers of Falcon 9 rockets with used first stages to ease their acceptance". 
http://spacenews.com/spacex-targeting-24-hour-turnaround-in-2019-full-reusability-still-in-the-works/

Does NSF have a source for what appears to be a claim that "SpaceX has lowered the standard price" going forward?  The SpaceX web site still lists the $62 million price.

 - Ed Kyle
Here's the full quote from the article:
Quote
SpaceX has given discounts to some early customers of Falcon 9 rockets with used first stages to ease their acceptance, particularly among risk-averse satellite operators who might otherwise be reluctant to launch a spacecraft costing $100 million or more on rocket booster already subjected to the rigors of launch and landing.

Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward.
This clearly and obviously reflects the quote we separately have, and indicates that 'SpaceX [has] lowered prices from "about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster'.

There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
Ed, that was from the Elon Musk Q&A with reporters before the block 5 launch, here is a transcript: https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Quote
So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.

Caleb Henry of Space News, who wrote the article I referenced, actually asked the question that triggered this answer from Elon, yet Caleb interpreted it as a early-user discount rather than an actual long-term, official price reduction. 

If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches.

 - Ed Kyle

That might be a reasonable expectation. FYI, the full question and answer looked like this:


Caleb Henry, SpaceNews: Hey Elon. Question about the price range that you talked about long term for the Falcon 9. You mentioned five to six million dollars. When do you project being able to provide those prices?

Elon Musk: Yeah. I do want to emphasize that those are long term marginal cost of flight. So those aren't prices, they're margin cost of flight, long term. Meaning it would take, I don't know, three years or so to get there. And then we are going to need to, we still have a bunch of fixed costs to cover, that need to be divided over that number of flights. And we need to recover the development costs of recovery. And pay for BFR. And pay for the Starlink constellation. So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.  ...

(taken from this transcript)


It might help in deciding whether the price is 1) for everyone, and 2) long term,  to include more of Elon's reply from the that transcript.

"So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster. That's by far the most competitive price in the world for a Falcon 9 class vehicle. And it's kind of cool, we're seeing a response from other organizations, Russia, Europe, and China, that are responding, and getting more competitive, which is good. So we're setting the forcing function for other launch organizations to improve their pricing. "

I wouldn't take those statements about the new F9 price as an early-adopter bonus only. I could be mistaken, but that does sound like a price change going forward.

Ninja'd by ababbon.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
(snip)
If reuse does reduce costs, I would expect to see an official price reduction for all launches.

 - Ed Kyle

That might be a reasonable expectation. FYI, the full question and answer looked like this:

Caleb Henry, SpaceNews: Hey Elon. Question about the price range that you talked about long term for the Falcon 9. You mentioned five to six million dollars. When do you project being able to provide those prices?

Elon Musk: Yeah. I do want to emphasize that those are long term marginal cost of flight. So those aren't prices, they're margin cost of flight, long term. Meaning it would take, I don't know, three years or so to get there. And then we are going to need to, we still have a bunch of fixed costs to cover, that need to be divided over that number of flights. And we need to recover the development costs of recovery. And pay for BFR. And pay for the Starlink constellation. So we do expect to see a steady reduction in prices, and we already have reduced prices from where they were, from about $60 million to about $50 million for a re-flown booster.  ...

(taken from this transcript)

No, it's NOT a reasonable expectation.  That's not how commercial enterprises work, and Musk states so directly.
"Those aren't prices"
Of course, the last part of the quote is the subject of the debate above, whether the $50M prices are incentives for early adopters of reuse or a permanent reduction.
Maybe it's not a reasonable expectation, but it happened already regardless?  :)
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
There is no ambiguity or conflict here, I do not believe your interpretation is correct.
Screen capture from just now. 

 - Ed Kyle

Oh, come on... the matter of interpretation referred to above is the text of the article, not SpaceX's website.

But look, the salient point is this: unless pressured by competition, SpaceX sees no need to pass the full savings of reusability on to their customers – which should not come as a surprise.

Moreover, the margin in which they'll be operating may be a full order of magnitude... wow.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 08:33 pm by dglow »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).

Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.
I agree completely.  The only other player with deep enough pockets and far enough along to try to get in the game anytime soon (less than 5 years) is Blue Origin right now.  And we don't yet know how successful they will be.

It will be interesting to see what other countries and companies try to do if they want to stay in the commercial space launch game.  For other players to change their mindset on how they develop launchers won't be easy.  They don't have the right people with the right attitude.  I can only imagine the discussions in the boardrooms around the world when they hear what the new pricing is.  None of these other players believed SpaceX could pull this off so they sat back and waited for SpaceX to fail.  Complacency is never a good strategy.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
10 reuses of the same block 5 booster along with 24hr turnaround set for 2019 is very impressive. They’ll prove the 10x and refurb plan long before they actually need it (if they ever do).

Even if he doesn’t agree with it as strategy, Elon is building a huge (candy filled) moat around the launch business.

They've already created a massive barrier to entry and this isn't going to make it any easier.

Ross.

The biggest barrier was created by Falcon taking a load of commercial launches off the table so that new entrants (or established players building 'affordable' new rockets) have a challenging time getting early paid 'test launches' and building a reasonable manifest.  Blue seems to have succeeded in building an early but limited manifest, likely by offering attractively low cost/large payload launches; all others have not been as successful.

Any/all existing major launch providers circa 2010 could have done a Falcon equivalent rocket -- probably 3 or 4 groups had the expertise -- and built that moat themselves.  SpaceX could have been frozen/starved out; Blue might not have ventured into New Glenn.  Instead, resting on their laurels, all established launch providers find themselves on the wrong side of the barrier.

(What Eric said...)
« Last Edit: 05/17/2018 08:41 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

I still see 22.8 metric tons to LEO.  Has been that way for a long while.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Twenty-five tons to LEO. Isn't that new?

Certainly would be.  But where do you find that referenced?

Here!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

The website lists 22,800 kg. That's 22.8 metric tons (what most people on this site consider when they say tons). No one really cares that it converts to 50,265 lb which is a little over 25 US short tons.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
I have followed SpaceX for years.  They are notorious for not updating their website with current conditions.  We all knew about "full thrust" about 6 months before they updated their website.  We also knew about the upgraded Falcon Heavy capabilities way before they updated their website.  They really don't take a lot of time updating their website except for the current completed launches.  I predict the website costs will change within the next 3-4 months after they get more info on Block 5 upgrades. 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1