Yes, the service customers are buying is delivery of payload(s) to orbit. SpaceX don't just provide the LV, they operate it too.
I put 'potential customers' in the OP because I'm interested in what the whole launch market (not just existing SpaceX customers) think of re-use. For some time there's been a view that just because re-use may be technically achievable it doesn't mean that it's economically viable. One key aspect of that is whether there's any demand for (or at least tolerance of) re-use, hence this thread.
I was hesitant to introduce any speculation on this thread, but the original post did say "potential" customers. So I see this as a good place to ask about a couple of potential scenarios that I have not seen discussed elsewhere.1. If I were a customer who paid a premium for a brand new booster, I would consider that (to use the airplane analogy) I paid for not just the flight, but for the airplane itself. Therefore, the hardware "belongs" to me and SpaceX should buy it back or let me continue to use it.2. Along the same lines, what if I were a customer who demanded a brand new booster, paid a premium, then expected to reuse that same hardware on subsequent flights for a cost less than a new customer who would fly on the same hardware? For example, if customer B pays 60% of the advertised rate to use flight-proven hardware, me (customer A) would expect to pay less (i.e. 40%) for reusing hardware that I originally paid full price for.or3. A customer who wants to pay a discounted rate, regardless of hardware, as part of a bundle of multiple missions. For example, a contract for 3 missions at 66% the advertised rate (3 for 2) that allows SpaceX to decide which hardware to use or re-use. The contract could have bonus clauses to, for example, deliver all missions within a negotiated time frame, which would drive and essentially pay for rapid reusability improvements.I think scenario 3 is where I would expect things to go.Mods, please feel free to delete this if it is too speculative for this thread.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 14m14 minutes ago@SES_Satellites CEO: W @SpaceX launch of SES-10 w/ previously flown stage, 'we expect considerable improvements in cadence & economics.'
It takes about 18 months from start of the long lead items to manufacture a booster...
...but it could take easily as little as six weeks for a used one.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/29/2017 12:56 amIt takes about 18 months from start of the long lead items to manufacture a booster...I would imagine only if you're counting long lead parts at the suppliers. But once the logistics pipeline is filled up and your BOM is only experiencing minor changes this is not even really a consideration.Quote...but it could take easily as little as six weeks for a used one.SpaceX is not remanufacturing each flown booster. Today they do some refurbishing, although that is because they have not flown their Block 5 versions yet which shouldn't require any refurbishment. But refurbishment is far less complex than remanufacturing which typically implies taking apart everything and then rebuilding.
The other problem at launch rates of 50+ a year is the manufacture of US's.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/29/2017 07:28 pmThe other problem at launch rates of 50+ a year is the manufacture of US's.The Hawthorne factory was set up to manufacture 40 cores per year, and that would have included a mix of upper stages. So with reuse, building 50 upper stages should be doable with their current manufacturing capabilities.
There is another aspect of reused boosters and that is there is a possibility of increase in reliability in using a booster that has already been "tested" in a real flight. The jury is still out on this aspect but it could have a major impact on SpaceX's failure rates if the flight reliability does indeed go up for used boosters from that of a new one. with used booster accounting for 70 to 90% of all flights the reliability rate average will go up. If that does work out then being the first to fly on a new booster may get a discount because of its lower (small amount hopefully though) reliability.
USAF Lt Gen Steven Kwast comparing low-cost launch with other transportation innovations that “changes the human condition.”
Kwast says that people can feel the power of the implications of reusable launch vehicles #ulcats
Kwast says recent Air Univ. study on ultra low-cost access to space (ULCATS) not intended to pick “winners and losers” but set conditions.
Les Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2017 02:29 pmULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).That's not a very constructive response by them.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes agoMarion Blakey, former FAA administrator: reusability of launch vehicles is an absolute game-changer; changes a lot of business calculations.
SpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air Force
On Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology.
Air Force:QuoteSpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air ForceQuoteOn Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/air-force-study-says-us-government-should-get-serious-about-reusable-rockets/And the Fast Space report:http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/Research/documents/Space/Fast%20Space_Public_2017.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-113507-743