Quote from: JamesH65 on 10/19/2016 09:13 amAs a customer, you can complain all you like, but if SpaceX are cheaper, and you go with someone else because you are not getting a discount since SpaceX are getting half their rocket back, then you are making a bad business decision. You are paying more for the same service, because you are being petty. Shareholders might have something to say about that. SpaceX just need to be cheaper, whether reusable or not, for people to use them in preference.All things being equal you might be right. But then you factor in their recent safety record IE your chance of getting to orbit. The 2nd explosion will have an effect on sales that only a successful RTF will cure. My interest is solely on lowering the price of launch for a viable payload by a lot.2-10 flights of re use and an expendable US won't deliver that.
As a customer, you can complain all you like, but if SpaceX are cheaper, and you go with someone else because you are not getting a discount since SpaceX are getting half their rocket back, then you are making a bad business decision. You are paying more for the same service, because you are being petty. Shareholders might have something to say about that. SpaceX just need to be cheaper, whether reusable or not, for people to use them in preference.
The key people who answer about recent failures is the insurance companies. And so far they have said no change in premium.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 10/19/2016 01:35 pmThe key people who answer about recent failures is the insurance companies. And so far they have said no change in premium.Statements made about 2 hours after kaboom, with no details available. Its a developing story, and the duration of investigation, nature of failure, independent assessments, market reaction etc will all affect these things. This is not '15 minutes car insurance call with no hidden fees' exactly, much more nuanced and individual deals often can get very different terms, too.You can really assess the impact after 2-3 new contracts have been placed
You imply that a successful RTF is somehow unlikely?
I do think your concerns are way overblown, and your expectations are unrealistic.
Quote from: llanitedave on 10/19/2016 12:42 pmYou imply that a successful RTF is somehow unlikely? No. If I thought that I would have said that. However in any real situation there is a finite possibility that would happen, although AFAIK it's never happened with any other LV's RTF Quote I do think your concerns are way overblown, and your expectations are unrealistic.I have no concerns over SX's RTF and my expectations of how much SX's reuse of the F9 first stage will lower their prices are very modest. I've never expected the partial reuse approach would give the (potential) price lowering full reuse would give (to the $6m/launch level Shotwell talked about). It's looking like people with be lucky if it delivers anything below BAU.
FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit
Oh John, you're so predictable. Skylon always will hit the most optimistic assumption based estimates, and everything else won't hit even the pessimistic assumption based estimates.
I'd expected SpaceX to get more aggressive on price but I have some ideas (as do others in the thread) on why they might feel they don't need to. Price != Cost though.
So far I've heard SX prices go from (projected) $6m (full reuse) to a desire for 50% below expendable price with SX countering with maybe a 30% price discount and now possibly none.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/20/2016 07:24 amSo far I've heard SX prices go from (projected) $6m (full reuse) to a desire for 50% below expendable price with SX countering with maybe a 30% price discount and now possibly none. They never said they would reach that price with Falcon. They are clearly planning to reach that price with their methane architecture, even with ITS.
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/20/2016 04:15 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 10/20/2016 07:24 amSo far I've heard SX prices go from (projected) $6m (full reuse) to a desire for 50% below expendable price with SX countering with maybe a 30% price discount and now possibly none. They never said they would reach that price with Falcon. They are clearly planning to reach that price with their methane architecture, even with ITS.If you mean $6m that's the figure Shotwell was talking about in 2014 at that years comm sat conference. she seemed to think it was doable with the technology SX had on hand at the time.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/20/2016 05:56 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 10/20/2016 04:15 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 10/20/2016 07:24 amSo far I've heard SX prices go from (projected) $6m (full reuse) to a desire for 50% below expendable price with SX countering with maybe a 30% price discount and now possibly none. They never said they would reach that price with Falcon. They are clearly planning to reach that price with their methane architecture, even with ITS.If you mean $6m that's the figure Shotwell was talking about in 2014 at that years comm sat conference. she seemed to think it was doable with the technology SX had on hand at the time.That's your interpretation. She did not say that.
They never said they would reach that price with Falcon. They are clearly planning to reach that price with their methane architecture, even with ITS.
But price to customer is what expands the market and it's what must come down if people wat to see serious expansion. A semi expendable architecture could deliver frequent enough access to LEO to support things like in space mfg but the price per unit mass eliminates AFAIK every possible product such a facility could make.
Next year Made in Space is going to start trial manufacturing ZBLAN on the ISS. http://www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/ArticleID/12662/Made-In-Space-to-Make-Fiber-Optics-in-Space.aspxThis is really cool because the material is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per kilogram - e.g.it could be wildly profitable even with today's launch costs.https://sites.google.com/site/cmapproject/case-studies/exotic-glasses-and-fibers
Maybe they are at the realization NOW that their methane based architecture is needed, but looking back I don't think it's fair so say that was their plan all along (see the original, full reuse F9 and associated quotes):http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a7446/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023/
$6m Falcon 9 launch prices REQUIRES both a reusable upper stage/PLF and very high flight rate, as in multiple launches per week. They may have been the original plan for Falcon 9, but that clearly isn't the plan now.
And a reusable upper stage has never been "on hand" technology.