Hmm.. now how do I look as a terrier???
Quote from: JamesH65 on 05/31/2016 08:39 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/31/2016 05:57 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/31/2016 05:22 pmRelative to NASA today, it is light speed.Still wrong. Again, NASA is not monolithic, there are groups within that can do things quickly.They may be able to do things quickly, but do they actually do things quickly (or allowed to)? Not quite the same thing - example would be useful.An example that includes going to Mars, that is...
Quote from: Jim on 05/31/2016 05:57 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/31/2016 05:22 pmRelative to NASA today, it is light speed.Still wrong. Again, NASA is not monolithic, there are groups within that can do things quickly.They may be able to do things quickly, but do they actually do things quickly (or allowed to)? Not quite the same thing - example would be useful.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/31/2016 05:22 pmRelative to NASA today, it is light speed.Still wrong. Again, NASA is not monolithic, there are groups within that can do things quickly.
Relative to NASA today, it is light speed.
I have this vision of Jim beset by a horde of yapping yorkies ...
I have this vision of Jim beset by a horde of yapping yorkies...
I am reluctant to shut down interesting lines of discussion but there seem to be at least two that are tangential to the purpose of this thread. I leave it to my betters whether that observation is accurate or needs redress.
My reasoning is that the ratio between tank flights and flights to Mars is fixed. 3 to 4 tanker launches are needed for one flight to Mars.
Quote from: AC in NC on 06/01/2016 12:11 amI am reluctant to shut down interesting lines of discussion but there seem to be at least two that are tangential to the purpose of this thread. I leave it to my betters whether that observation is accurate or needs redress.I think he's telling you lot to get back on topic. (clearly he's not talking to ME... er wait...)
The $62 million price point for Falcon 9 v1.2 is for 5.5 t to GTO.So what then is the price of an F9 when launching its full expendable capacity of 8.3 t to GTO? Is $62 million dependent on something like barge reuse?
Quote from: Pipcard on 07/10/2016 02:36 amThe $62 million price point for Falcon 9 v1.2 is for 5.5 t to GTO.So what then is the price of an F9 when launching its full expendable capacity of 8.3 t to GTO? Is $62 million dependent on something like barge reuse?$62 million almost certainly doesn't actually require reuse, but it may be that SpaceX is charging more if the customer requires or desires an expendable launch.Some of that may be market segmentation, but a lot of it is SpaceX going, "Hey, reuse is central to our goals long-term, and if you're not going to allow us to attempt reuse, it's going to cost you more." But that doesn't mean they can't do just fine with $62 million and a fully expended Falcon 9.tl;dr: Price is not cost.
SpaceX is not yet ready to give discounts where the booster is recovered. So the price of $62M for 5.5mt or 8.3mt is the same at this point.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/10/2016 01:52 pmSpaceX is not yet ready to give discounts where the booster is recovered. So the price of $62M for 5.5mt or 8.3mt is the same at this point. You may be right, but there is to date no evidence to support this assertion. SpaceX web site specifically says $62 million for "up to 5.5 metric tons to GTO", while also saying that max payload to GTO is 8.3 metric tons. To me that sounds like higher price for more than 5.5 tonnes. It also suggests, to me, that payload beyond 5.5 tonnes requires expending the first stage.We'll see. - Ed Kyle
A BTW is that an FH all RTLS price could be as low as $52M meaning there would after FH is reliably flying no expendable F9s and the offer for them would be removed. This also meands that a FH ASDS center recovery would be $62M and a FH all ASDS recovery as high as $82M. Not much of a savings over the current $90M price.But here the $90M price is a question. And that is whether the price is an all expended or for at least booster recovery. There is some indication that the price is for at least booster recovery (ASDS).
SES has said it wants a substantial discount on SpaceX’s already low price in exchange for being the first customer. But SES has made clear to investors that regular use of partially reusable rockets is a key component of SES’s strategy for reducing capital spending. SES insurance underwriters have said they will not insist on major premium increases to cover a launch with a reused first stage.
...But I believe the 5.5mt value is a notice to future payloads that if they are less than that weight then they could take advantage of a lower price, whatever that may be in the future. While larger payloads would have to pay the current price.Also there may be as many as three prices for an F9:...
From:SpaceNews - SpaceX successfully launches JCSAT-16QuoteSES has said it wants a substantial discount on SpaceX’s already low price in exchange for being the first customer. But SES has made clear to investors that regular use of partially reusable rockets is a key component of SES’s strategy for reducing capital spending. SES insurance underwriters have said they will not insist on major premium increases to cover a launch with a reused first stage.
I read the 62M$ for 5.5t as the price/mass that permits a (potential) recovery. I suspect in the future they'll keep the mass limitation but lower the price when reusing core is standard.
If you really want a new core the price will increase.
Quote from: llanitedave on 08/14/2016 04:25 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/14/2016 02:45 pmBut no, they aren't free.You have two costs here (at least). The cost of the RLV above that of the ELV it could have been with the same technology base, and the cost of recovery and non-trivial, non "gas-n-go" handling prior to vehicle integration.These are non-trivial costs, a fair fraction of the total LV cost.Free in the sense that whether or not they cost more to manufacture than a stage designed to be expendable-only, they have been paid for on their first flight. You don't know that. You'd have to have access to SX financials to know that.All you know is that the costs have been expended to build, test, qualify, integrate, launch and recover a vehicle. Note that "recover" cost. More than an ELV.For all you know, they could have a financial model that batches into, say, 100 launches, with a phase in of reuse, where a part of the "reuse to come" has already been part of the LV provider's embedded fixed cost.QuoteThat will change later, when SpaceX lowers its price in response to the assumption of stage re-use, but as long as launches are priced based on the assumption of an expended booster, then that successfully returned boosters higher cost doesn't really matter, as its cost has already been recovered. So "Free" in that sense.Source for these three, broad, assumptions?The financial "good news" is that it appears that the flight test program is drawing to a close.The uncertainties here are in what changes to the CONOPs/vehicle will do to costing.Again, not an enthusiast here but a businessman with pragmatics. You do know it is a business that is very pragmatic ...
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/14/2016 02:45 pmBut no, they aren't free.You have two costs here (at least). The cost of the RLV above that of the ELV it could have been with the same technology base, and the cost of recovery and non-trivial, non "gas-n-go" handling prior to vehicle integration.These are non-trivial costs, a fair fraction of the total LV cost.Free in the sense that whether or not they cost more to manufacture than a stage designed to be expendable-only, they have been paid for on their first flight.
But no, they aren't free.You have two costs here (at least). The cost of the RLV above that of the ELV it could have been with the same technology base, and the cost of recovery and non-trivial, non "gas-n-go" handling prior to vehicle integration.These are non-trivial costs, a fair fraction of the total LV cost.
That will change later, when SpaceX lowers its price in response to the assumption of stage re-use, but as long as launches are priced based on the assumption of an expended booster, then that successfully returned boosters higher cost doesn't really matter, as its cost has already been recovered. So "Free" in that sense.
The current price is for new core, and SpaceX reserves the right to recover that core.