Quote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 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.There’s a pretty big opening for people in the 1 ton payload market. Well below Falcon 9.
Quote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 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.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/18/2018 02:08 pmQuote from: kraisee on 05/17/2018 08:00 pmQuote from: Ludus on 05/17/2018 07:51 pm10 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.There’s a pretty big opening for people in the 1 ton payload market. Well below Falcon 9. But what could a F9 launch cost with such a launch if they can price in RTLS, fairing recovery and maybe upper stage?I've been pondering the idea of how F9 prices could get broken down by performance required. Low performance with full reuse of all components upto expendable or just the booster recovery on an ASDS.Seems there is lots of room for SpaceX to break things down and customize effort to customer requirements.Edit: Cadence is a hugely important part of lower the fix costs per vehicle. Plus the closer they get a to launch on demand capability then they'll really put the final squeeze on other commercial providers.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/18/2018 12:24 amOn February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.And that's fine, but that was in February, and it's May. Elon's statement is much more recent and it is more definitive.It may be proven wrong, but right now, it's the best information we have, and it is very specific about numbers ($60 million new, $50 million previously flown) instead of vague qualifiers.
On February 6 Hans Koenigsmann said SpaceX was going to phase out discounts for reused boosters.
I get that you really want to not believe it, but the information we have directly from the CEO of the company, which is not contradicted by any other information from anyone else, tells us that the price for a previously flown booster is now $50 million.So, you're (currently, with actual evidence, until proven otherwise) wrong.The only evidence you have here for your opinion is that you don't trust Elon. Period.
There is nothing inconsistent between what Hans said and Elon said. Hans didn't say prices would be steady, just that used and new boosters wouldn't be different.
"We may be able to get down to a marginal cost for a Falcon 9 launch down, fully considered, down under $5 million or $6 million."https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/full-elon-musk-transcript-about-spacex-falcon-9-block-5.htmlI think this is the "best case" re-use cost Elon envisions for the Falcon 9 including RTLS, Fairing recovery/re-use, and some mythical second stage recovery/re-use.
Maybe just $5m. But a reusable launcher in the 1 ton range could get a per launch cost below $1m.
It’s because customers are used to a leisurely pace and can’t get their payloads to the launch site on time. I think it’s going to take a whole lotta work on the payload side to increase launch cadence appreciably. And that the Falcons will be twiddling their thumbs waiting for payloads to show up. It’s not just Iridium. Lots of launches have been slipping right. By a lot.
If you like, try working out just how many launches you'd need to fly to make 10x as much profit compared to the original investment needs, assuming $100m development (ramped-up over five years), $20m annual operational fixed costs after that, and $5m per flight with 40% margin (things get much, much worse assuming smaller launchers at $1m price with 40% margin). The numbers are eye opening. For a start, I can tell you that it can't realistically be done in 7 years.
FYI, I consider RocketLab to have made it in under the wire already, and perhaps Virgin One and Firefly, and Blue are definitely in the running, but anyone else who is not already in, is effectively already out - they just don't know it. Unless of course they can find that rare "sugar daddy" who's willing to pay lots and lots of big bills without looking at the bottom line for at least a decade.
If only SpaceX was planning something that they could launch to keep the flight rate up.. hmm. (The initial part constellation should start launching in a year or two, right?)
I’m getting hung up on the “increase launch cadence” part. Let’s have an example. Iridium NEXT 5 launched from Vandy on 3/30. Right before launch, Iridium NEXT 6 was scheduled for late April. Then, after launch it slipped to 5/10 and now it’s 5/22. The pad doesn’t need nearly two months between launches, and SpaceX has launched within two weeks. So what’s the reason why the launch has slipped three weeks?It’s because customers are used to a leisurely pace and can’t get their payloads to the launch site on time. I think it’s going to take a whole lotta work on the payload side to increase launch cadence appreciably. And that the Falcons will be twiddling their thumbs waiting for payloads to show up. It’s not just Iridium. Lots of launches have been slipping right. By a lot.
Agreed. Now they all like to say that the small-sat market will *explode*... But even if that is true, that doesn't mean that small-sat launchers will see much business, it could all go to the bigger or existing players.
Wasn't that the premise behind the Orbital Pegasus development?I think it now holds the record for the most expensive ELV in terms of $/lb to orbit of any vehicle.
This is probably my favorite subject. Lowering launch costs and prices. I believe that once BLK 5 starts its rapid launch and hardly any refurbish phase the prices will be reorganized by recovery option. RTLS $50M. ASDS $55M. EXP $62M.