Of course reusable is cheaper. I don't see the question as even debatable.
Quote from: AC in NC on 04/17/2018 10:04 pmOf course reusable is cheaper. I don't see the question as even debatable.Well, it's good to see you're keeping an open mind about it. Reusable could end up being more expensive if the cost to recover and refurb is too high, if the lifetime of reusable items is too short, or if the performance penalties associated with reuse outweigh the savings, just to name three reasons.IMHO, it's still an open question as to whether SpaceX will make reuse work in the long term.
Quote from: AC in NC on 04/17/2018 10:04 pmOf course reusable is cheaper. I don't see the question as even debatable.Reusable could end up being more expensive if the cost to recover and refurb is too high, if the lifetime of reusable items is too short, or if the performance penalties associated with reuse outweigh the savings, just to name three reasons.
Didn't Shotwell say that refurbishing the booster on the very first re-flight cost less than half of a new booster?
Quote from: Oberon_Command on 04/17/2018 11:17 pmDidn'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?I think it's been demonstrated that most people here have made up their minds on this topic and aren't interested in debate. Since we can't see SpaceX's balance sheets we can't know for sure where they stand; I find it very hard to believe that reusability has paid for itself yet.
It's like borrowing money to start a business. The business can be immediately profitable even though it may take a few years to repay the loan.
In that case though you are only profitable if you at least make enough to pay the interest on the loan... if the capital investment is large enough and the savings small enough, you won't ever pay it back (even if you are indeed saving money every time)
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.2. It'll be a fairer bet when it's all Block 5 boosters.I'm amused by the idea that if re-use wasn't a good thing SpaceX wouldn't be doing it. Considering the foolishness that Elon is doing over at Tesla, I wouldn't be surprised at all if SpaceX wasn't also neck-deep in folly.So, once they go all Block 5 and I know I won't be violating gambling laws, I'll check back on this thread and see if the bet is still on.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/18/2018 03:59 amIt's like borrowing money to start a business. The business can be immediately profitable even though it may take a few years to repay the loan.In that case though you are only profitable if you at least make enough to pay the interest on the loan... if the capital investment is large enough and the savings small enough, you won't ever pay it back (even if you are indeed saving money every time).
I'm amused by the idea that if re-use wasn't a good thing SpaceX wouldn't be doing it. Considering the foolishness that Elon is doing over at Tesla, I wouldn't be surprised at all if SpaceX wasn't also neck-deep in folly.
There's no foolishness going on at Tesla. Media hype.
Quote from: Oberon_Command on 04/17/2018 11:17 pmDidn'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?
Quote from: laszlo on 04/17/2018 06:20 pmI'm amused by the idea that if re-use wasn't a good thing SpaceX wouldn't be doing it. Considering the foolishness that Elon is doing over at Tesla, I wouldn't be surprised at all if SpaceX wasn't also neck-deep in folly.Tesla teared down the fully automatic transfer belts as well as many other automatic equipment in Fremont only months after they found it obsolete. There is no reason for SpaceX to continue doing it for 29 months and well into routine if they found it does little or no good.
Quote from: sewebster on 04/18/2018 06:25 amQuote from: Kabloona on 04/18/2018 03:59 amIt's like borrowing money to start a business. The business can be immediately profitable even though it may take a few years to repay the loan.In that case though you are only profitable if you at least make enough to pay the interest on the loan... if the capital investment is large enough and the savings small enough, you won't ever pay it back (even if you are indeed saving money every time).That is correct. But if the numbers SpaceX has been quoting are true, ie saving roughly half the cost (let's say $20 million) of an F9 on a reusable mission, and $1 billion invested in reusability, that's 50 reusable missions to break even (plus a few more, say for interest/opportunity cost). That's just a few years of normal operations for SpaceX.