If it can lift it in reusable mode, they pay reusable price.
If it's massive enough that it can only be lifted by SpaceX in expendable mode, then they pay expendable price. They care not a whit whether SpaceX gets the stage back or not, once it has put their product into the desired orbit. If SpaceX can't lift it at all, or can't meet their price requirements, then they can go to Ariane or someone else.
If expendable price and reusable price are the same, then their decision point rests on whether someone else can launch it more reliably or cheaply.
I think this talk of a decision of expendable F9 vs. reusable F9 based on payload should rather be reusable F9 vs. reusable F Heavy. Loads that are at the high end of F9's capabilities and that would require that the first stage be crashed would in my opinion be moved up to FH.
What about this thought (just really off the top of my head, no real thought) - Re-usability may bring the price down enough that it may make sense to launch substantially lower mass payloads on F9 or FH than would otherwise be launched but then use the excess capacity to do dogleg trajectories allowing for launches not normally achievable from a given launch site.
I agree with this concept of "SpaceX time", actually its Elon time as it applies to Tesla as well but in this case I think things are coming together much faster than expectable. Remember the 10% chance of landing on the water? and in the first three tries it was 2-1/2 successes? And the recent barge landing was pretty good for so many new changes introduced in one flight, further encouraging me to think this is going rapidly. And the more we hear about Falcon the more is understood about how re-usability isn't being added so much as functionality built in from the beginning now getting to the point of use.
I think re-flight will happen in 2015 though maybe not to orbit. Maybe a hop in New Mexico or Texas after a full launch.
I really don't think they'll find much that needs attention or study, and I have some feeling that they'll fast track that landed stage into a quick launch (not lab analysis as most predict) to make a show of it.
No they won't. Why would they even think they could? The customer has 0 leverage here. If they ask for a discount and SpaceX doesn't give it to them what are they going to do? Find a cheaper launch provider? Good luck!
I agree with this concept of "SpaceX time",
Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/19/2015 12:25 pmMy bet is 2017 at earliest.I think re-flight will happen in 2015 though maybe not to orbit.
My bet is 2017 at earliest.
A seat price of about $447 000 for the first flight.That is exactly what some people here are suggesting will happen.Does it still sound sensible to you?
Re-fly in 2016, won't begin selling prev flown flights until 2017. That's optimistic too.
Quote from: llanitedave on 01/19/2015 06:45 pm If it can lift it in reusable mode, they pay reusable price. And that's the question. What is the "reusable price?"
In fact, this can be best modelled as an Edgeworth-Bertand Price Oligopoly, where SpaceX is the "follower" who sets the price equal to the leader's price (minus a iota, meaning a very little discount) and the leader sets the price at his lowest possible price. As long as SpaceX is the only reusable, it will work like this:- ULA (or the other non reusable competitor) sets a price.- SpaceX sets then its price equal to the ULA's price minus an arbitrarily low value.- SpaceX meets all the share of the market it can service given its supply chain.- the residual market goes to the competitor.
The remainder will be victims of economic darwinism, and then will be forced to re-use.
Quote from: Ludus on 01/20/2015 04:30 amI just saw Elon's Seattle Q&A. Launching over 4000 several hundred kilo satellites as an in-house project (over 15 years) does do that.You are seriously lowballing the launch need. A configuration with 4000 sats and a lifespan of 5 years will require launching 800/year forever.Edit: fixed quote
I just saw Elon's Seattle Q&A. Launching over 4000 several hundred kilo satellites as an in-house project (over 15 years) does do that.
If F9R actually proves to be rapidly reusable what are the consequences 2015-2020?
Quote from: Ludus on 01/19/2015 04:10 amIf F9R actually proves to be rapidly reusable what are the consequences 2015-2020?If F9R works and is cost effective (still to be proven), it will put pressure mostly on Orbital Sciences Antares. This is because F9R, giving up performance for re-usability, will not be able to fly most EELV or heavy commercial GTO missions. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: guckyfan on 01/20/2015 08:11 amQuote from: Ludus on 01/20/2015 04:30 amI just saw Elon's Seattle Q&A. Launching over 4000 several hundred kilo satellites as an in-house project (over 15 years) does do that.You are seriously lowballing the launch need. A configuration with 4000 sats and a lifespan of 5 years will require launching 800/year forever.Edit: fixed quoteI just realized that before I looked at the thread again. This is really a continuous production business making and launching as you say, 800 sats a year forever. This connects to Elon's comments about the Aerospace biz not really understanding manufacturing (something spending half his time building cars would give a lot of insight in). That estimate of 5 year lifespan seems about right even if they can be built to last longer since this deals with the issue of keeping the network constantly upgraded. Unlike other approaches he seems more flexible about exactly how big or expensive the sats are. it seems closer to guess 8 launched at a time than 80, so more like 100 launches per year than 10.
An expendable Falcon 9 v1.1 can do 11,940kg to a 1,250km high, 70deg inclined orbit and 11,045kg to a Polar. All this according to NASA's NLS II site. Reusable should be around 8,600kg. Let's assume that the satellites are 500kg. So Falcon 9 can probably do 16 set/launch. Or about 50launches/year, in single core, reusable mode. Heavy could probably do it in 20 if its not volume limited. Which is a lot but not unheard of (Soyuz seems happy to do it). It would probably require three pads at Vandemberg, though.
Yep...IF they don't use BFR (or Mini BFR) for launching these.... , 50 F9 or 15ish FH launches a year may be reason to revisit the decision not to do the engineering for second stage reuse, though.