There have been lots of discussions on this, and pretty much everyone agrees that you need a high launch rate to justify reuse.
It makes money with the first reuse.Assuming cost to recover & refurbish is lower than cost to manufacture, yes. I have a really hard time seeing them burn $25-$30 million or whatever to recover & refurbish a first stage, so I agree.
I'm just going to add a thought. Just because a stage it deemed "reusable" and launched it may not be "reliable"... One needs to factor this into the cost structure estimates...
It makes money with the first reuse.Assuming cost to recover & refurbish is lower than cost to manufacture, yes. I have a really hard time seeing them burn $25-$30 million or whatever to recover & refurbish a first stage, so I agree.
I'm just going to add a thought. Just because a stage it deemed "reusable" and launched it may not be "reliable"... One needs to factor this into the cost structure estimates...
A stage costs no more than $15 million. We know this because expendable FH costs 30 million > expendable F9.
Yes I agree in theory, however the conclusion can not be drawn until repeated successful "reliable-reused" flights have been demonstrated...I'm just going to add a thought. Just because a stage it deemed "reusable" and launched it may not be "reliable"... One needs to factor this into the cost structure estimates...
IMO reusable implies reliable. An unreliable stage won't fly, SpaceX or any other provider cannot afford it.
A stage costs no more than $15 million. We know this because expendable FH costs 30 million > expendable F9.
I don't see where you can infer that it is expendable first stages on the launch vehicles quoted at $62M and $90M on http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities). The inference from the performance limits written in small print right below the price is that they are recoverable launches. However, I do infer that an expendable F9 must cost more than $90M or there would be no incentive to use an FH.
So, it is reasonable to assume a (fully expendable) launch price on the order of $180mio for FH. Triple the price of a fully expendable F9. And why shouldn't that be the case?Only one S2, interstage, PLF. Any non-hardware cost (range fees, payload processing, etc) are likely to be closer to F9 than triple F9 costs.
If we assume that reusability reduces maximum payload by about 30% and take 22.2 tons to GTO as a baseline for FH, then a reusable FH should have a payload of just under 16 tons. FH could carry two 8ton payloads. If a single 8-ton-payload costs $90mio, they will probably try to get two payloads. (The market being what it is, they will probably be in the 6-7ton range.)
So, it is reasonable to assume a (fully expendable) launch price on the order of $180mio for FH. Triple the price of a fully expendable F9. And why shouldn't that be the case?
There will be some extra cost, so the price is quite justified. Frankly, $90mio for an FH launch without reuse strikes me as quite ludicrous.
A stage costs no more than $15 million. We know this because expendable FH costs 30 million > expendable F9.Wrong. 60 milion is for expendable F9, but 90 milion is for at least partially reusable FH.
If you assume reuse is completely successful as planned, the marginal cost of a launch would drop immediately and dramatically. Doing a launch with a reused core that's already been written off would cost a small fraction of using a new core. The difference between the reuse marginal cost and the reuse price would still have to contribute as much to the rest of SpaceX balance sheet as a new core launch. Otherwise they're losing money.
That still allows space for both significant price cuts and bigger profits.
Nobody seriously expects SpaceX to save more that 20% in costs through reusing the 1st stage.
Nobody seriously expects SpaceX to save more that 20% in costs through reusing the 1st stage.
Except SpaceX perhaps. They are talking about launch prices in the 40 million $ range which would be over 30% price cut and we can safely assume their profit in $, not in % will remain at least the same per launch, or else they would cut less.
If you assume reuse is completely successful as planned, the marginal cost of a launch would drop immediately and dramatically. Doing a launch with a reused core that's already been written off would cost a small fraction of using a new core. The difference between the reuse marginal cost and the reuse price would still have to contribute as much to the rest of SpaceX balance sheet as a new core launch. Otherwise they're losing money.
The first stage hardware is only a small part of the cost of the launch service. There are many complex operations involved in launching a rocket: the logistics, the infrastructure, payload integration, stacking, fueling, mission control, pre-launch and post-launch operations, as well as all the administrative overhead and the R&D. The biggest center of cost is the payroll for all the people who do all that work, and none of that is affected by core reuse.
Nobody seriously expects SpaceX to save more that 20% in costs through reusing the 1st stage.QuoteThat still allows space for both significant price cuts and bigger profits.
It's one or the other really. SpaceX is already the cheapest shop in town with a growing backlog. They have nothing to gain by cutting prices.
In fact, if they want their Mars plans to come into fruition, they are going to need deeper pockets, because nobody else is going to pay for them. So their best option would be not to cut prices and to use any cost savings to pay for Musk's expensive hobby.
<snip>
The first stage hardware is only a small part of the cost of the launch service. There are many complex operations involved in launching a rocket: the logistics, the infrastructure, payload integration, stacking, fueling, mission control, pre-launch and post-launch operations, as well as all the administrative overhead and the R&D. The biggest center of cost is the payroll for all the people who do all that work, and none of that is affected by core reuse.
Nobody seriously expects SpaceX to save more that 20% in costs through reusing the 1st stage.
When I look at the cost of F9 operations optimisticly but with a spreadsheet backing up my estimations I do not see costs (internal to SpaceX and no -profit) getting as low as $20M. My lowest number for costs (not price) [full reusability] is ~$23M with a price of ~$30M. Note this price is also a profit reduction per launch ($7M of profit vs current). But the real shocker here is that FH could have as low of a cost (not price) of $30M and a price of $40M. While that $23M for F9 could be shaved down as much as $3M (refurbishment cost 0) the FH would see a reduction of $9M making an FH cost (not price) nearly the same as an F9 per launch. Litterally just $2M different even if the manufacturing costs are amortized accross 20 launches.
On another note is that once SpaceX figures out what their costs are for reuse they could get to the "it does not matter if it is launch #1 or #20 the price is the same". In this scenario, it takes only 2 succesfull flights of a booster to break even with all costs. If the average is 20 flights except the very infrequent failure that would cause the booster to not be reused if recovered or not recovered SpaceX will not have many cases if any where they don't break even on costs for a booster. Once SpaceX is at this point then the all flights have same price and that price is the used booster price. SpaceX sacrifices $1-4M [20 down to 5 flights per booster] in profit, maybe. They could have reduced their costs for the reuse that increased their profit to equal the amortization charge for manufacturing costs.
I think a lot of people here are forgetting that SpaceX is vertically integrated. They do not have significant marginal costs associated with making new Falcon 9 rockets, so calculations of the internal cost of a booster are mostly meaningless unless you consider it as an alternative cost. SpaceX has mostly fixed costs due to keeping their workforce employed, and the marginal costs that they do have (such as range use) would be mostly independent of reuse.
Reuse isn't really a way to reduce costs, it is a way to increase the launch rate without increasing the size of the production line. A booster doesn't get any cheaper because you reuse it if the fixed costs and the launch rate stay constant. You need to take advantage of the new capabilities of your launcher.
Regarding the cost of the F9/FH variants, I interpret the F9 cost as the price for a new rocket, but which SpaceX is allowed to use in their development program. In other words, the cost is reduced because it helps SpaceX to introduce reuse earlier, which allows them to expand their launch rates in the future making this a direct investment in their growth from their perspective. From an investor's perspective, company growth is a form of profit, so reduced cashflow due to investments in growth are reasonable.
For FH it could be either way, but I don't expect SX to ever fly the FH without side core RTLS because of how early the boosters separate.
I think this overstates a few things including how vertically integrated they are.
1) Employment is not a fixed cost. People can be laid off or hired as needed. In SpaceX's case, they will likely be re-tasked where possible to other funded ventures such as CC or satellites with no real bearing on the cost per rocket.
2) As long as SpaceX is reusing only the first stage, they will need to produce fresh second stages for every launch.
3) They do in fact have suppliers, material costs, and transportation costs.
I think this overstates a few things including how vertically integrated they are.
1) Employment is not a fixed cost. People can be laid off or hired as needed. In SpaceX's case, they will likely be re-tasked where possible to other funded ventures such as CC or satellites with no real bearing on the cost per rocket.
2) As long as SpaceX is reusing only the first stage, they will need to produce fresh second stages for every launch.
3) They do in fact have suppliers, material costs, and transportation costs.
These points are true but the point remains that the variable costs of an additional launch are the comparison point for reuse savings calculations.
1) If the are reusing more and the cannot layoff (I don't think they do the between launches) or need to hire due to increased cadence, that is a variable cost in the short term.
2) 2nd Stages are a variable cost until they get to reuse.
3) Suppliers, material, and transportation are only variable to the extent they are variable. If they have to rent Range Resources that's variable. If they need more SPAM, that's variable. If they don't integrate transportation, that's variable except for gas and maintenance.
I don't know how much it has been stated, but the real issue I'm seeing is with second stage reuse being tied to Mars transportation. I'm not quite understanding the business case for reusing an interplanetary stage that makes 4 trips per decade (assuming Mars launch windows) unless it also doubles as a well-used transportation system to Earth orbit. However Elon is adamant that the Falcon line will take care of the satellite market for the foreseeable future and has indicated that the second state reuse plans aren't compatible with the Falcon rocket architecture.Realize that the interplanetary stage will be reused multiple times per each mission cycle:
I attached a porkchop plot showing the delta-v space for Mars as the sum of hyperbolic excess velocities. Sorry, I didn't spend any time making it pretty. The point the plot makes is simply that the Mars windows are not really voluntary.
I don't know how much it has been stated, but the real issue I'm seeing is with second stage reuse being tied to Mars transportation. I'm not quite understanding the business case for reusing an interplanetary stage that makes 4 trips per decade (assuming Mars launch windows) unless it also doubles as a well-used transportation system to Earth orbit. However Elon is adamant that the Falcon line will take care of the satellite market for the foreseeable future and has indicated that the second state reuse plans aren't compatible with the Falcon rocket architecture.Realize that the interplanetary stage will be reused multiple times per each mission cycle:
I attached a porkchop plot showing the delta-v space for Mars as the sum of hyperbolic excess velocities. Sorry, I didn't spend any time making it pretty. The point the plot makes is simply that the Mars windows are not really voluntary.
1) launch
2) refuel and fire again from Earth orbit toward Mars
3) landing on Mars
4) refuel and ascent from Mars
(possible refueling in Mars orbit, perhaps not required)
5) landing on Earth
The stage has to be intact at each stage, not shedding parts that it'll need in the rest of the mission. So you ALREADY need a reusable stage (really a spacecraft, but I'll stick with your terminology) just so the architecture works, so you might as well use it again. And getting 10-15 mission cycles out of each manufactured stage makes a non-insignificant reduction in cost! ...even if it is over 2-3 decades.
...additionally, SpaceX will require the stage to do refueler duty and cargo duty. They need the stage to be capable of a lot more than 10-15 reuses in those configurations.
And yeah, the potential cost reduction of 4-5 mission cycles per decade is still important. They need the cost as low as possible in order to achieve the sub-$500k/person ticket price, and at the full swing of 80,000 people to Mars per year, they'll need that reuse just to keep up.
The reusable second stage will be shuttling enormous amounts of propellent and cargo in LEO, roughly 5000 tonnes per 100 people sent to Mars. That's not feasible with disposable upper stages.
The reusable second stage will be shuttling enormous amounts of propellent and cargo in LEO, roughly 5000 tonnes per 100 people sent to Mars. That's not feasible with disposable upper stages.
5,000 tons? About a quarter of the LEO mass will make it to Mars. That's quite the haul.
The reusable second stage will be shuttling enormous amounts of propellent and cargo in LEO, roughly 5000 tonnes per 100 people sent to Mars. That's not feasible with disposable upper stages.
5,000 tons? About a quarter of the LEO mass will make it to Mars. That's quite the haul.
Musk estimated 10 cargo flights per passenger flight, all hauling 100t of payload and probably about as much dry mass (engines, structure, heatshield, etc.). That's thousands of tons in LEO, once you include propellent.
I don't see how a bigger expendable launcher is any cheaper. Colonization isn't feasible unless the launcher is cheaply and quickly reusable, including the second stage. That's true no matter what the scale.
The vast majority of launches will not be interplanetary though. To send a 11 ships to Mars (one with 100 passengers, ten with 100t cargo each) will require not 11 but about 50 launches of 100t each to LEO (to orbit the 5000t I mentioned before).
A cheaply reusable super heavy lift upper stage is absolutely indispensable to making colonization work.
It would seem having so much expensive infrastructure sitting around for 2 years at a time with nothing to do would doom such a project to economic failure. Trying to move 100 – 800 people every 2 years with an eventual goal of 800,000 – 1 million spread over 2 to 3 decades would also appear to be a recipe for failure. It would make more sense for the 1st few cycles to carry 10 – 20 people at a time with their associated equipment to establish the initial colony and then expanded the system into something much more efficient.
As has probably been discussed before, using a Mars cycler with transit stations at both Earth and Mars would make much more sense. The cargo would go by SEP which could be launched at any time and spiral out until they can leave during the appropriate window. When it gets closer to the appropriate window the people can launch and stay at a station at ELL2 and then leave to catch the Mars cycler. At the Mars end they could depart and wait at the Mars station to catch the landing craft down.
The beauty of using a Mars cycler is that almost all of the living space, radiation shielding, power and food/water production is only launched once. It doesn’t slow down at the Mars end nor at the earth end. By using the infrastructure to build more infrastructure you are more akin to building a road than just a simple boat like the Mayflower.
On each cycle SEP tugs could bring more modules and supplies to the Mars cycler. These cycles would be on both the inbound and the outbound trip thus doubling the number of opportunities. The people would only be going on the outbound side. On each outbound the people could add the new modules and thus increase the number of people this cycler could handle on each trip. This means the system could be expanded and thus make use of all of the infrastructure over the entire departure Mars cycle instead of just being clustered around a small 2 to 3 week window.
As most of the people would be going outbound at 1st there would only be in need in the beginning for an outbound cycler. As commerce increases eventually a Mars – Earth inbound cycler could be constructed. In the beginning the most logical cycler to use would be the Aldrin cycler. At the moment there are 18 other cyclic orbits known. Each of these with different time periods per cycle and earth to Mars transit times. But as the commerce between Earth and Mars increases it might make sense to add at least some of these other cyclic periods to the overall system. This would increase the number of transit times available to Mars from approximately once every 2 years to an occasional of multiple times every 2 years.
What SpaceX’s long-term plans are only SpaceX knows. But it would seem that the economics would force the maximum use of the infrastructure if a long-term project is to have any chance at all of succeeding.
The vast majority of launches will not be interplanetary though. To send a 11 ships to Mars (one with 100 passengers, ten with 100t cargo each) will require not 11 but about 50 launches of 100t each to LEO (to orbit the 5000t I mentioned before).
A cheaply reusable super heavy lift upper stage is absolutely indispensable to making colonization work.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a ship that is equally useful as a LEO hauler and a manned Mars expedition ship. I would assume two separate versions under normal circumstances.
Probably three: manned, cargo, and propellent tanker, differing mostly in how payload is stored. They would use the same launcher and engines, and probably be built on the same production line. All would need about the same payload and Delta v performance, and all would need to be capable of Mars and/or Earth EDL.
I don't see how building one version to be reusable while the others are expendable saves any cost or time. They all need landing capability (and return, for Mars ships) anyway.The vast majority of launches will not be interplanetary though. To send a 11 ships to Mars (one with 100 passengers, ten with 100t cargo each) will require not 11 but about 50 launches of 100t each to LEO (to orbit the 5000t I mentioned before).
A cheaply reusable super heavy lift upper stage is absolutely indispensable to making colonization work.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a ship that is equally useful as a LEO hauler and a manned Mars expedition ship. I would assume two separate versions under normal circumstances.
I never suggested anything should be expendable.
I'm just wondering how feasible it is to lower the cost of an interplanetary stage by aiming to reuse it 4 times/decade. It sort of seems like the goal you have after you've been building something similar for decadesI don't disagree with this part. There will be a massive upfront investment required to get any reusable system flying. The feasibility of it all is TBD.
...
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a ship that is equally useful as a LEO hauler and a manned Mars expedition ship. I would assume two separate versions under normal circumstances.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a ship that is equally useful as a LEO hauler and a manned Mars expedition ship. I would assume two separate versions under normal circumstances.
I see it working out this way: A MCT will have an engine section and a cargo or passenger section. The engine section will have tanks big enough to work as a tanker as well. With tanks that big it can do fast transfer even in unfavorable launch windows. It just needs another fueling flight.
So a new MCT will start its life as a tanker. No passenger or cargo section added, saving weight. Only a cap with heatshield on top. It will do 5 or whatever flights as a tanker until it is proven reliable. Then a cargo or passenger section gets added and it will do ~10 or whatever flights to Mars. At the end of its life the cargo section gets removed and it works as a tanker again. This way you can get at least 40 launches out of the expensive part, the engine section.
Gucky, I like the plan. However, I would put less Mars flights on the menue. If they keep flying the same engine section ~10 times to Mars, they will need to support the same hardware, software, all the replacement parts, etc for about 30 years. Thats a pretty long time. It is more likely that technology advances fast enough to make a replacement of an MCT as a Mars shuttle every ~3 trips more likely. That way, they can phase out old technology every 10 years or something which is much more reasonable.
It doesnt really hurt either because the engine section can do just more tanker runs, or even cargo to LEO or GTO missions. In fact, a MCT for GTO missions would be quite cost efficient since the entire rocket gets re-used naturally. Dont know what the payload limits would be though.
It doesnt really hurt either because the engine section can do just more tanker runs, or even cargo to LEO or GTO missions. In fact, a MCT for GTO missions would be quite cost efficient since the entire rocket gets re-used naturally. Dont know what the payload limits would be though.
<snip>
Here is my second worry beyond the frequency of interplanetary stage reuse. How do you iterate towards the correct design? We all watched SpaceX redesign the Falcon 9 over the years before they got the stages to land and we can expect several more iterations before they achieve "rapid" reuse. That's just the nature of bleeding-edge engineering. How many chances do they get to nail down MCT's architecture in a way that really optimizes against any contingency in a sustainable way? How many flights before you even put people on that voyage? Rationally, the process to reusable interplanetary spacecraft should take at least half a century if we were in a rush.
However, rather than just be skeptical, might I suggest that perhaps a more sustainable path to this kind of thing might actually be the moon after all? So many technologies can be qualified getting there and it's only a few days away. Tickets will sell just as well or better too.
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
Everything you're saying is true. I think that SpaceX will naturally have to reorganize their entire organization to optimize around reuse eventually anyway and I think that means that they will try to eliminate fixed costs where they have the luxury to even if they lose some of their vertical integration. That should be on the table at least.
Unfortunately you cannot get around this by doing more tanker flights. The ratio Mars/tanker is fixed at betwen 3-1 and 4-1.
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
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.
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
That is slow. Moon landing was 8 years from the start of the program and 19 from starting from complete scratch (first large US indigenous liquid fueled rocket)
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
That is slow. Moon landing was 8 years from the start of the program and 19 from starting from complete scratch (first large US indigenous liquid fueled rocket)
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.
Relative to NASA today, it is light speed.
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
That is slow. Moon landing was 8 years from the start of the program and 19 from starting from complete scratch (first large US indigenous liquid fueled rocket)
It is slow! For sure. But everything is slower these days and SpaceX doesn't have a significant fraction of GDP at its disposal, this is (a lot closer to) self funded.
Sure. A partnership of organizations using expendables could do something, and something significant, for public expenditure levels of 50% of Apollo, with some clear headed thinking about how to spend that budget thoughtfully and efficiently.
But I suspect that Musk can and will do it for less, and that it will be a larger footprint (in the sense of tonnes landed and infrastructure built). But that's my ideology talking, I freely admit.
Blackstar would no doubt say exactly the opposite.
Yeah, but not manned missions to Mars.
Relative 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.
Still wrong. Again, NASA is not monolithic, there are groups within that can do things quickly.
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
That is slow. Moon landing was 8 years from the start of the program and 19 from starting from complete scratch (first large US indigenous liquid fueled rocket)
2) By the time SpaceX lands people on Mars, they will have been working toward this reusable interplanetary spacecraft for a quarter century. They work fast...
That is slow. Moon landing was 8 years from the start of the program and 19 from starting from complete scratch (first large US indigenous liquid fueled rocket)
Relative 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.
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.
Hmm.. now how do I look as a terrier???
Relative 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...
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...Quite off topic, but believe it or don't, people have been killed by Yorkies... See Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 (http://sfdogmauling.com/fataldogattacks.pdf), page 839.
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.I think he's telling you lot to get back on topic. (clearly he's not talking to ME... er wait...)
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.
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.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 (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities).$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.
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?
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. The difference being the ability to "test" recovery. Once reuse is normalized then the price for 5.5mt will drop but the price for 8.3mt would stay at $62M. $62M is the expendable price. SpaceX has yet to set the reuse price.The $62 million price point for Falcon 9 v1.2 is for 5.5 t to GTO (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities).$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.
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?
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.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.
Yes we will see.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.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 $90M price is a question. And that is whether the price is an all expended or for at least booster recovery. There is some indication that the price is for at least booster recovery (ASDS).
SES has said it wants a substantial discount on SpaceX’s already low price in exchange for being the first customer. But SES has made clear to investors that regular use of partially reusable rockets is a key component of SES’s strategy for reducing capital spending. SES insurance underwriters have said they will not insist on major premium increases to cover a launch with a reused first stage.
...
But I believe the 5.5mt value is a notice to future payloads that if they are less than that weight then they could take advantage of a lower price, whatever that may be in the future. While larger payloads would have to pay the current price.
Also there may be as many as three prices for an F9:
...
From:SpaceNews - SpaceX successfully launches JCSAT-16 (http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-jcsat-16-satellite-faces-crowded-end-year-manifest/)QuoteSES has said it wants a substantial discount on SpaceX’s already low price in exchange for being the first customer. But SES has made clear to investors that regular use of partially reusable rockets is a key component of SES’s strategy for reducing capital spending. SES insurance underwriters have said they will not insist on major premium increases to cover a launch with a reused first stage.
I read the 62M$ 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.
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.
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 ...
The current price is fornew core, and SpaceX reserves the right to recover that core.
The current price is fornew core, and SpaceX reserves the right to recover that core.
The current price is for a launch service for payloads up to 5.5mT to GTO. It doesn't say anything about the type of core.
Assuming SpaceX is totally serious about their reuse plans and that the booster stages are actually capable of many reflights (i.e. more than just 3 or 4), they'll have to stop differentiating between "new" and "previously flown" boosters.
There just aren't enough missions on their current manifest that will require expended stages.
How large a booster fleet do they need? They'll move production to upper stages and only need a few boosters to make up for failed landings and fleet retirement as booster flight limits are reached.
The current price is for a launch service for payloads up to 5.5mT to GTO. It doesn't say anything about the type of core. Assuming SpaceX is totally serious about their reuse plans and that the booster stages are actually capable of many reflights (i.e. more than just 3 or 4), they'll have to stop differentiating between "new" and "previously flown" boosters.
Most importantly, it is my opinion that the base price will be based on the market and their strategic objectives and not specifically a reflection of the launch cost.
That would be a change from how they price today, where so far they have offered extremely stable public pricing.
That would be a change from how they price today, where so far they have offered extremely stable public pricing. And for reusability to really catch on I think the pricing of their services needs to be predictable, since it is the combination of lower pricing and certainty that the prices won't rise that will allow companies to test out new products and services that take years to develop and get ready for launch.
If SpaceX is perceived to have prices that could rise unpredictably, I don't think the market will expand fast enough to need or use a fleet of reusable rockets - not when satellite owners will still want to keep other launch providers busy enough so that SpaceX doesn't become a monopoly (which no one should want).
My $0.02
If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
They've shown a 2 week turnaround on a single pad and so far have maintained about 1 launch per month steady state. Once they have their 4 pads running at the same pace and can do test-firings on the pad for reused stages, I see no reason why they couldn't fly once or twice a week with all their pads combined.If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
If SpaceX soon starts reflying stage one often, they will be pad and processing-constrained, not production-constrained. But without a system that lets them fly weekly or more often, they can't drop prices all that much.
They've shown a 2 week turnaround on a single pad and so far have maintained about 1 launch per month steady state. Once they have their 4 pads running at the same pace and can do test-firings on the pad for reused stages, I see no reason why they couldn't fly once or twice a week with all their pads combined.If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
If SpaceX soon starts reflying stage one often, they will be pad and processing-constrained, not production-constrained. But without a system that lets them fly weekly or more often, they can't drop prices all that much.
...
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.
...
Again, not an enthusiast here but a businessman with pragmatics. You do know it is a business that is very pragmatic ...
...
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.
...
Again, not an enthusiast here but a businessman with pragmatics. You do know it is a business that is very pragmatic ...
As you say, it's a pragmatic business. Why would they leave money on the table (they could certainly charge more and still have more payloads than they can launch) and at the same time eat the cost of building, flying, recovering, and reusing the vehicle? That's bleeding money both ways for the last 5 years, with no end in sight.
I would expect the opposite... prices could fall unpredictably. They are 'over achieving' on recovery, and reuse with little refurb appears in the near future. If they end the year with ten cores in the barn and have relaunched twice successfully, then all launch prices could begin to collapse toward the discounted first reuse launches.
In this environment, companies could fairly confidently test new products and services. As capital expenditures decrease (SES planning for example), a virtuous cycle may be established.
On the other hand, if you are competing in this launch market, investments in next generation of launchers (like Ariane 6 or Vulcan planning for a halving of 2010-2015 prices by 2020-2025) will always be behind the curve.
How does the already announced reduced prices for rides on reused boosters fit into this financial model? If reuse is already costed in, there shouldn't be room to drop prices.
You think launch ops currently cost upwards of $30 million expended on every mission? That seems pretty high to me. And they would be eating most of that cost if hardware is $50 to 60 million (which Elons says it does) and they are only charging about $65 million for a commercial launch.
The $19M reduction advertised by GS indicates that first stage cost minus retrieval/refurbishment equals that figure. Assuming rework costs are $3-5M, the first stage hardware costs are $22-24M -- let's use $24M (40% or so of the launch price). The first stage is quoted at 75% of the F9 hardware costs. Entire F9 would then cost $32M. This leaves $30M-ish for all other operations plus profit.
Our pricing right now assumes no reusability. None of our prices are contingent on that. Any reusability we're able to achieve would only allow us to reduce prices from where they are today. The more often we're able to fly and the more often we're able to reuse the stages and the less work they require between flights, the lower the costs can be. The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today.
You're assuming they want to pass the entire savings on to customer immediately. I think they will eventually, but first need to recover some of the many millions they spent developing a recoverable and reuseable system.
Musk has saidQuoteThe boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today.
<snip>
Absent better information, I'm inclined to believe that the 30% is temporary and that their standard list price for launch services when reuse is no longer considered any different from non-reuse will be the price that maximizes their profit minus the amount of their profit they are strategically willing to concede for various selfish reasons (PR, general boost to the industry).
It would be extraordinarily suprising to me if they passed anything close to full savings on to customers.
Is there something public that supports your belief they will eventually pass the entire savings to the customer?
...
Well, cheaper is one way to say it, another way to say it is we're trying to make space accessible to everyone. We want it to be such that if you want to go to orbit or beyond, then you can do so. We want to open up space for humanity, and in order to do that, space must be affordable.
100 launches per year at 60m a launch = 6 billion dollars a year!A simple look at this year 2016 with 16 paid F9 flights and 3 of those being a CRS that's a total of paid for launches made this year of 16*$62M + 3 *$70M = $1.2B.
6 billion a year should pay for a lot.
Of course to get 100 launches per year? Is there that many launches from all providers now? At some point we need more people needing things launched. Which means lower prices.
You're assuming they want to pass the entire savings on to customer immediately. I think they will eventually, but first need to recover some of the many millions they spent developing a recoverable and reuseable system.
<snip>
standard list price will be the price that maximizes their profit minus the amount of their profit they are strategically willing to concede for various selfish reasons
It would be extraordinarily suprising to me if they passed anything close to full savings on to customers.
The price that the current market can bear is significantly higher than they are charging, and a significant amount of their 'profit' is being rolled back into R&D for future unprofitable-to-the-extreme adventures.
Maximizing their profit doesn't seem to be their business model to date... certainly that could change, but I don't see any indication of that new M.O. Do you?
That statement there by EM reads to me as information about the cost to SpaceX rather than a price (cost) to the customer.Correct.
There is a several major drivers of very big incentive for SpaceX to book profits.That would be the VC investors and any planned IPO.
Is it not the case that the GS 30% discount is simply the "bait" to hook the customers necessary to proof reliable reuse such that they can go back to selling "launch services" rather than having the customer worry about the booster details?So you're not making a statement, you're asking a question. AFAIK SX have not set permanent pricing for the flights using reused 1st stages.
Absent better information, I'm inclined to believe that the 30% is temporary and that their standard list price for launch services when reuse is no longer considered any different from non-reuse will be the price that maximizes their profit minus the amount of their profit they are strategically willing to concede for various selfish reasons (PR, general boost to the industry).IOW Charge customers what the market will bear and keep the rest of the profits. Just like every launch vehicle services company.
It would be extraordinarily suprising to me if they passed anything close to full savings on to customers.Historically this is exactly what has happened. That's the BAU model.
It is easy to get confused between cost savings and prices. Personally, I think spacex will make the reused booster prices just low enough to gauge how much growth room there is for lower priced launches. Aside from trying to prove the launch market can grow, they probably will maximize profit as much or more then other launch providers for the reused vehicles. The motivation for this would be to fund the development of their mars architecture.
...
Incomplete answer and not at all the two most important ones that I was considering:There is a several major drivers of very big incentive for SpaceX to book profits.That would be the VC investors and any planned IPO.
QuoteAbsent better information, I'm inclined to believe that the 30% is temporary and that their standard list price for launch services when reuse is no longer considered any different from non-reuse will be the price that maximizes their profit minus the amount of their profit they are strategically willing to concede for various selfish reasons (PR, general boost to the industry).IOW Charge customers what the market will bear and keep the rest of the profits. Just like every launch vehicle services company.
QuoteIt would be extraordinarily suprising to me if they passed anything close to full savings on to customers.To get significant market growth SX has to lower it's prices for some of its launches to see price elasticity. How much is significant is a tricky question. Some think 30$ is significant. Some do not.
I'm simply trying to suggest, passing along all savings is IN MY OPINION very unlikely whereas others have said they expect that to be the case. They have very valid reasons to not pass along a reasonably sized portion of the savings, reasons THAT FURTHER THE BROADER MISSION OF SPACE-X and reasons that are not Greedy or Just like every other Launch Vehicle Services Company.
...
I'm simply trying to suggest, passing along all savings is IN MY OPINION very unlikely whereas others have said they expect that to be the case. They have very valid reasons to not pass along a reasonably sized portion of the savings, reasons THAT FURTHER THE BROADER MISSION OF SPACE-X and reasons that are not Greedy or Just like every other Launch Vehicle Services Company.
I'm simply trying to suggest, passing along all savings is IN MY OPINION very unlikely whereas others have said they expect that to be the case. They have very valid reasons to not pass along a reasonably sized portion of the savings, reasons THAT FURTHER THE BROADER MISSION OF SPACE-X and reasons that are not Greedy or Just like every other Launch Vehicle Services Company.
Agreed, the action (maximizing profit in the near term) is similar to other launch services companies, but the motivation is vastly different. Spacex has a goal of developing the technology, equipment, and infrastructure to allow human space travel at the planetary level and beyond. They will do what best forwards that goal. I would also argue that waiting for the huge price cut till they have a fully reusable vehicle also makes the most sense if their goal was only to reduce launch prices drastically. It does not make sense to expand the production of expendable components to the scale to meet the theoretical demand that they would need to close the business case for a minimum priced falcon 9 when they could spend that same capital to develop a fully reusable vehicle. Full reuse also should have a much better ratio of profit to fixed infrastructure costs even at the lower price.
...
* If it is true that SpaceX is losing lots of money on each flight, they'll be out of business soon.
...
I did say EVENTUALLY in the post that started all this. Eventually, a number of factors will force them to pass on a significant majority of the launch cost reductions in the form of price cuts to a significant number of customers (though perhaps not all customers). Those factors could be competition, a desire to dramatically increase launch rate, and the simple fact that Mars colonization isn't feasible at current prices.
For instance, I doubt they will charge internal customers (e.g. CommX) prices much above reuseable cost for a launch. However, Falcon 9 might be retired or significantly different from it's current form by the time they do that for external customers.
You're assuming they want to pass the entire savings on to customer immediately. I think they will eventually, but first need to recover some of the many millions they spent developing a recoverable and reuseable system.
Musk has saidQuoteThe boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today.
Is there something public that supports your belief they will eventually pass the entire savings to the customer?
That statement there by EM reads to me as information about the cost to SpaceX rather than a price (cost) to the customer. There is a several major drivers of very big incentive for SpaceX to book profits. Is it not the case that the GS 30% discount is simply the "bait" to hook the customers necessary to proof reliable reuse such that they can go back to selling "launch services" rather than having the customer worry about the booster details?
Absent better information, I'm inclined to believe that the 30% is temporary and that their standard list price for launch services when reuse is no longer considered any different from non-reuse will be the price that maximizes their profit minus the amount of their profit they are strategically willing to concede for various selfish reasons (PR, general boost to the industry).
It would be extraordinarily suprising to me if they passed anything close to full savings on to customers.
and I expect him to push the latter as aggressively as he can while keeping an eye on the bottom line.
Maybe he wants to sell launches for a fraction over cost. I don't think that allows for his other objectives and I think the other objectives require significantly less than a full concession.
A significant cost driver will be running the Mars settlement programme afffordably. But that's an internal customer, so again does not help anyone outside looking for a lower $/lb price.
For instance, I doubt they will charge internal customers (e.g. CommX) prices much above reuseable cost for a launch. However, Falcon 9 might be retired or significantly different from it's current form by the time they do that for external customers.
It's an interesting idea but keep in mind NASA like developing EDL systems, they just don't like the bill for TPS.1. Very cheap delivery of science payloads to any surface in solar system.
Maybe he wants to sell launches for a fraction over cost. I don't think that allows for his other objectives and I think the other objectives require significantly less than a full concession.
Universities, NASA don't have to develop launch vehicle, entry, descent, landing. Could subtract a lot off science missions.
Agreed, the action (maximizing profit in the near term) is similar to other launch services companies, but the motivation is vastly different.From an economics PoV (note the thread title) who cares?
They don't need billions to do BFR/BFS. They need cash flow. They can get adequate cash flow if they raise launch frequency with the assistance of a flow of booster reuse. The tipping point is greater than 51 percent global telecom (plus other) payloads. That will cause a imbalance in costing of other LVs that force the bimodal distribution of launch pricing to split widely.
Other global LV's still continue, but once you sweep too much onto F9/FH manifest, then it become self-reinforcing.
Nor does it destabilize in down years - you just scale back operations, ready to scale up when needed.
They don't need billions to do BFR/BFS. They need cash flow. They can get adequate cash flow if they raise launch frequency with the assistance of a flow of booster reuse. The tipping point is greater than 51 percent global telecom (plus other) payloads. That will cause a imbalance in costing of other LVs that force the bimodal distribution of launch pricing to split widely.
Other global LV's still continue, but once you sweep too much onto F9/FH manifest, then it become self-reinforcing.
Nor does it destabilize in down years - you just scale back operations, ready to scale up when needed.
They don't need billions to do BFR/BFS. They need cash flow. They can get adequate cash flow if they raise launch frequency with the assistance of a flow of booster reuse. The tipping point is greater than 51 percent global telecom (plus other) payloads. That will cause a imbalance in costing of other LVs that force the bimodal distribution of launch pricing to split widely.
Other global LV's still continue, but once you sweep too much onto F9/FH manifest, then it become self-reinforcing.
Nor does it destabilize in down years - you just scale back operations, ready to scale up when needed.
Totally agree...SpaceX for the next couple of years needs to raise launch frequency. Most people on the board projected SpaceX doing 12 maybe 13 launches this year. 2016 will be the highest number of launches for SpaceX. Now next year and 2018 with 3 or 4 launches sites - with no mishaps - I would expect SpaceX to be launching at least 24 times per year. Now if you were ULA - would you not like to be launching 24 times a year and increasing? Now - put in resuseability - I would take the those prices down to $50 million. I can beat you they will find buyers for those launches. They have too many buyers now - if the price is lower - demand will go up. Remember the airforce thought the price for the recent contract that SpaceX won to be about $140 million. If SpaceX raised the price of its launch to $100 million do you think ULA would have won? Nope.
It's not exactly like SpaceX says "We want to fly Red Dragon" and someone else says "Great, that'll be $300 million, please."
You plan out the amount of spending you need to be doing -- sometimes by the fiscal year, sometimes by the quarter, sometimes even for a given month -- to get you to landing a Red Dragon on Mars.
You then arrange your cash flow to cover the spending that needs to be done. Sometimes (often, actually) that cash flow has to be enhanced with things like bank loans and venture capital. But if you have healthy revenues, you just continue to pay off old short-term loans and get new ones, and balance it all on the bigger payoffs projected for the near- and -medium-term future.
So, as long as SpaceX achieves the cash flows it has projected to cover the financial house of cards that every American corporation ends up playing with, there really isn't a problem from the funding side. The corporate banking/VC/etc. funding system in the U.S. is designed to cushion and support corporate expansions much larger than this.
Of course, the economies of re-use will need to provide the anticipated profit margin for the house of cards to remain standing, I think...
... they can wipe out all the competition ...
Reduce the price just enough to price out the competition ...
... they can wipe out all the competition ...Reduce the price just enough to price out the competition ...
Neither of those is going to happen. Foreign governments would not permit it and even the US government has learned the lesson of what happens if you have only one launch provider. SpaceX should aim for a healthy market share but realise there's a political limit to what that share is.
SpaceX has already priced out the competition from the market segments they serve. But that won't last forever. Once they validate their business model, other competition will get into the market. And some might make it to market even sooner than that (Blue Origin, most likely).If by that you mean anything below 16 tonnes to LEO then you'd be right.
...
Once you move to GTO it's a different story and a very different (unpublished) price, which is partly why Arianespace (along with it's considerably longer successful launch record) is still in business.
By the way, Ariane 5 had twice as many full (and partial) launch failures in its first 20 launches than SpaceX has had with Falcon 9. And SpaceX's launch rate (at least so far this year) is twice that of the usual Ariane 5 launch rate and is improving significantly every year. Arianespace's longer successful launch record will not last, and the counter is reset when they move to Ariane 6.SpaceX has already priced out the competition from the market segments they serve. But that won't last forever. Once they validate their business model, other competition will get into the market. And some might make it to market even sooner than that (Blue Origin, most likely).If by that you mean anything below 16 tonnes to LEO then you'd be right.
Once you move to GTO it's a different story and a very different (unpublished) price, which is partly why Arianespace (along with it's considerably longer successful launch record) is still in business.
Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, said in March that the launch provider hopes to offer price reductions of as much as 30 percent to customers willing to launch their satellites on a reused rocket.
A 30 percent discount would put Falcon 9 prices near $43 million, at least compared to SpaceX’s online list price. Shotwell said further cuts could come as SpaceX improves on the time and cost of turning around flown rocket stages for another launch.
...
Once you move to GTO it's a different story and a very different (unpublished) price, which is partly why Arianespace (along with it's considerably longer successful launch record) is still in business.
SpaceX publishes prices for GTO launch: 62 million for 5.5 metric tons to GTO.
QuoteGwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, said in March that the launch provider hopes to offer price reductions of as much as 30 percent to customers willing to launch their satellites on a reused rocket.QuoteA 30 percent discount would put Falcon 9 prices near $43 million, at least compared to SpaceX’s online list price. Shotwell said further cuts could come as SpaceX improves on the time and cost of turning around flown rocket stages for another launch.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/30/ses-agrees-to-launch-satellite-on-flight-proven-falcon-9-rocket/
Listen to the boss.
QuoteGwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, said in March that the launch provider hopes to offer price reductions of as much as 30 percent to customers willing to launch their satellites on a reused rocket.QuoteA 30 percent discount would put Falcon 9 prices near $43 million, at least compared to SpaceX’s online list price. Shotwell said further cuts could come as SpaceX improves on the time and cost of turning around flown rocket stages for another launch.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/30/ses-agrees-to-launch-satellite-on-flight-proven-falcon-9-rocket/
Listen to the boss.
Made a spreadsheet analyzing re-use of F9 first stages assuming various mfg costs, launch ops costs, core recovery costs and refurbish & re-test costs. Re-use should be very lucrative.
However you need to factor in Recovery % which decreases the # of re-useable cores rapidly unless % is high, and most of all Failure % which also removes cores from the re-use pool.
For example (see attached spreadsheet) at an imaginary failure rate of 0% and recovery rate of 90%, still only 39% of the cores make their 10th flight. So core robustness is not the limiting factor.
Conversely at a current failure rate of 5% and recovery rate of 90% only 23% of the cores make their 10th flight.
And at a failure rate of 5% and recovery rate of 80% only 8% of the cores make their 10th flight. Recovery % really matters.
Lots of room for improvement.
QuoteGwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, said in March that the launch provider hopes to offer price reductions of as much as 30 percent to customers willing to launch their satellites on a reused rocket.QuoteA 30 percent discount would put Falcon 9 prices near $43 million, at least compared to SpaceX’s online list price. Shotwell said further cuts could come as SpaceX improves on the time and cost of turning around flown rocket stages for another launch.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/30/ses-agrees-to-launch-satellite-on-flight-proven-falcon-9-rocket/
Listen to the boss.
Made a spreadsheet analyzing re-use of F9 first stages assuming various mfg costs, launch ops costs, core recovery costs and refurbish & re-test costs. Re-use should be very lucrative.
However you need to factor in Recovery % which decreases the # of re-useable cores rapidly unless % is high, and most of all Failure % which also removes cores from the re-use pool.
For example (see attached spreadsheet) at an imaginary failure rate of 0% and recovery rate of 90%, still only 39% of the cores make their 10th flight. So core robustness is not the limiting factor.
Conversely at a current failure rate of 5% and recovery rate of 90% only 23% of the cores make their 10th flight.
And at a failure rate of 5% and recovery rate of 80% only 8% of the cores make their 10th flight. Recovery % really matters.
Lots of room for improvement.
The explosion investigation and launchpad repair seem sure to scuttle SpaceX’s aggressive launch plans this year. The company had hoped for as many as 18 rocket launches this year. It has had eight so far; last week’s would have made nine. Over all, SpaceX has had 27 successful launches of Falcon 9 rockets.
The Florida accident is also rippling through the insurance market. Insuring the risk of getting a satellite into space comes in two stages. The preflight insurance is intended to mainly cover the risk of damage to the rocket and satellite on their way to the launchpad. Premiums are a fraction of a percent.
Launch policies, which take effect when the rocket is fired up, are costly, ranging from 5 to 15 percent historically.
But the Falcon 9 exploded during a prelaunch test. So launch policies did not kick in. And the insurance payout will fall on the roughly two dozen preflight insurers.
Richard Parker, managing director of Assure Space, an underwriting agency, is waiting to see the cause of the explosion. If it is a design or manufacturing flaw or an operational error, launch rates for SpaceX flights may well go up. His firm had underwritten a launch policy on last week’s flight at 6 percent, he said.
Exactly... have tried to get that point across for a couple months. It will require a 93.3% recovery rate to get half of the cores to ten flights.
You raise another interesting point, though. At 5% ongoing failure rate, lots of non-statistical bad things begin to happen, such as frequent interruptions for return-to-flight, declining manifest due to loss of confidence (crew flights will be first to go), and general lack of good will toward their way of doing business. These items and others like them are difficult to quantify, but will have much greater impact than a spreadsheet can reveal.
In other words, SpaceX may not achieve any of its goals if they have a significant ongoing launch failure rate. Much more troubling than barge recovery rate...
First of many articles that will pour out on this topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/spacexs-explosion-reverberates-across-space-satellite-and-telecom-industries.html?_r=0QuoteThe explosion investigation and launchpad repair seem sure to scuttle SpaceX’s aggressive launch plans this year. The company had hoped for as many as 18 rocket launches this year. It has had eight so far; last week’s would have made nine. Over all, SpaceX has had 27 successful launches of Falcon 9 rockets.
The Florida accident is also rippling through the insurance market. Insuring the risk of getting a satellite into space comes in two stages. The preflight insurance is intended to mainly cover the risk of damage to the rocket and satellite on their way to the launchpad. Premiums are a fraction of a percent.
Launch policies, which take effect when the rocket is fired up, are costly, ranging from 5 to 15 percent historically.
But the Falcon 9 exploded during a prelaunch test. So launch policies did not kick in. And the insurance payout will fall on the roughly two dozen preflight insurers.
Richard Parker, managing director of Assure Space, an underwriting agency, is waiting to see the cause of the explosion. If it is a design or manufacturing flaw or an operational error, launch rates for SpaceX flights may well go up. His firm had underwritten a launch policy on last week’s flight at 6 percent, he said.
This is more about "price" than "cost," but I couldn't find a "price" thread.
Gwynne Shotwell now saying SpaceX will offer 10% discount for customers flying on a reused F9 booster, much less than the 30% number being discussed earlier.
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/
Gwynne floated the 30% figure back in March:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-says-reusable-stage-could-cut-prices-by-30-plans-first-falcon-heavy-in-november/
So, even at best, reusability will get a little bit more than 10% reduction in price. One can only conclude that SpaceX's models indicate that they're not going to save much money with reusability, because they're not going to pass much savings to the customer."only conclude" ??
This is more about "price" than "cost," but I couldn't find a "price" thread.
Gwynne Shotwell now saying SpaceX will offer 10% discount for customers flying on a reused F9 booster, much less than the 30% number being discussed earlier.
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/
Gwynne floated the 30% figure back in March:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-says-reusable-stage-could-cut-prices-by-30-plans-first-falcon-heavy-in-november/
And from the first article:
"At this point that is a reasonable reduction and then, as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve that, then we might get a little bit more. But in general, it’s about 10 percent right now."
So, even at best, reusability will get a little bit more than 10% reduction in price. One can only conclude that SpaceX's models indicate that they're not going to save much money with reusability, because they're not going to pass much savings to the customer.
So, even at best, reusability will get a little bit more than 10% reduction in price. One can only conclude that SpaceX's models indicate that they're not going to save much money with reusability, because they're not going to pass much savings to the customer."only conclude" ??
Actually one can conclude all sorts of things from that... for example, that they have decided their manifest is full enough that they don't need to discount heavily yet, and would rather get more revenue for a while.
Seems to me the key phrase is "as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve (reusability), then we might get a little bit more (price reduction)..."
Which says to me they're simply trying to recoup the major investment they've made in recoverability efforts, the ASDS fleet, etc, before dropping the price significantly.
So, even at best, reusability will get a little bit more than 10% reduction in price. One can only conclude that SpaceX's models indicate that they're not going to save much money with reusability, because they're not going to pass much savings to the customer."only conclude" ??
Actually one can conclude all sorts of things from that... for example, that they have decided their manifest is full enough that they don't need to discount heavily yet, and would rather get more revenue for a while.
There's gotta be a pony in there somewhere, huh?
They were talking 30% seven months ago, only 10% now. So I guess you'd think it is a good thing if they started talking 5%, huh?
And note that this is actually the opposite from the way that companies usually work. They usually offer big discounts up front to attract customers, then they raise their prices. That's how airplane manufacturers do it--the first buyers get deep discounts, the latter ones not so much.
Labor. Labor. Labor.
Say it three times.
If the rocket is free, the propellant is free, the range is free, and the insurance is free, take the number of bodies required by the company, multiply by whatever FTE cost you want and divide by the number of launches. That's the minimum cost per flight.
Labor. Labor. Labor.
Say it three times.
If the rocket is free, the propellant is free, the range is free, and the insurance is free, take the number of bodies required by the company, multiply by whatever FTE cost you want and divide by the number of launches. That's the minimum cost per flight.
Labor. Labor. Labor.
Say it three times.
If the rocket is free, the propellant is free, the range is free, and the insurance is free, take the number of bodies required by the company, multiply by whatever FTE cost you want and divide by the number of launches. That's the minimum cost per flight.
Most of these people will do development and building a new type of rocket. It is not part of the cost of flight. You are arguing that the rockets will pay for development which is what will happen, but that's from profits out of the launch, not part of the launch cost.
Umm, accountant, lawyer and janitor payroll are part of your launch costs, if you only have a single revenue stream.Labor. Labor. Labor.
Say it three times.
If the rocket is free, the propellant is free, the range is free, and the insurance is free, take the number of bodies required by the company, multiply by whatever FTE cost you want and divide by the number of launches. That's the minimum cost per flight.
Most of these people will do development and building a new type of rocket. It is not part of the cost of flight. You are arguing that the rockets will pay for development which is what will happen, but that's from profits out of the launch, not part of the launch cost.
Most of these people will do development and building a new type of rocket. It is not part of the cost of flight. You are arguing that the rockets will pay for development which is what will happen, but that's from profits out of the launch, not part of the launch cost.Umm, accountant, lawyer and janitor payroll are part of your launch costs, if you only have a single revenue stream.
Also, citation needed on " most people are in R&D", I don't think that's true
Also support posts like accountant, lawyer and janitor costs are split between all parts of the company, they are not launch cost.
Seems to me the key phrase is "as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve (reusability), then we might get a little bit more (price reduction)..."
Which says to me they're simply trying to recoup the major investment they've made in recoverability efforts, the ASDS fleet, etc, before dropping the price significantly.
Except she did not say they would "drop the price significantly."
She said "a little bit more."
You do realize that "little bit" and "significantly" are not synonyms?
Also support posts like accountant, lawyer and janitor costs are split between all parts of the company, they are not launch cost.
The cost of the company is the cost of the launch as long as you have one revenue stream, which is launch services. The more you launch and the higher the revenue, the thinner you spread these costs across a single launch. It's pretty simple, really.
I think he's talking about net profit, still wrong thought.Also support posts like accountant, lawyer and janitor costs are split between all parts of the company, they are not launch cost.
The cost of the company is the cost of the launch as long as you have one revenue stream, which is launch services. The more you launch and the higher the revenue, the thinner you spread these costs across a single launch. It's pretty simple, really.
You are saying development cost of the next car generation is part of the production cost of the present car generation. That's not simple, it's simply wrong.
Seems to me the key phrase is "as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve (reusability), then we might get a little bit more (price reduction)..."
Which says to me they're simply trying to recoup the major investment they've made in recoverability efforts, the ASDS fleet, etc, before dropping the price significantly.
Except she did not say they would "drop the price significantly."
She said "a little bit more."
You do realize that "little bit" and "significantly" are not synonyms?
Hoffman: expect to take a couple years to refine the refurb process and costs. See “significant” cost savings in a few years. #AIAASpacehttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474)
Also support posts like accountant, lawyer and janitor costs are split between all parts of the company, they are not launch cost.
The cost of the company is the cost of the launch as long as you have one revenue stream, which is launch services. The more you launch and the higher the revenue, the thinner you spread these costs across a single launch. It's pretty simple, really.
You are saying development cost of the next car generation is part of the production cost of the present car generation. That's not simple, it's simply wrong.
You either borrow the money to pay for the development costs or you self-fund it out of revenue stream (profits). Boeing is $30Billion in the hole on the 787 aircraft which has been amortized over 10 years. They won't break even until they sell 1,100 planes, thus recouping the investment. Sales of existing planes helped pay for that cost.
Two more full-duration static-fire tests are planned for the stage to gain confidence for limited reuse of the first stage. “We’ll feel pretty good about reflying each stage once or twice” once those tests are complete, she said. An updated version of the Falcon 9, to be rolled out next year, should be able to reuse its first stage up to 10 times
If a company needs to recover their R&D investment, which is normal practice, then discounts on RLV launch costs a going to be small.In pretty well every other industry except the launch business, where historically major new developments have been funded either directly by governments or with very substantial funding by a government who expects to use the vehicles heavily. IE the EELV programme.
What say there is no requirement to recover R&D investment, then launch costs only need to cover operational costs plus modest profit. Blue may well be in this situation, Bezos is funding Blue to get more people into space, not to grow his future in near term.We'll see either way.
...
So 2 reuses or 10 reuses is not going to bring down the launch cost very much at all.
If a company needs to recover their R&D investment, which is normal practice, then discounts on RLV launch costs a going to be small.In pretty well every other industry except the launch business, where historically major new developments have been funded either directly by governments or with very substantial funding by a government who expects to use the vehicles heavily. IE the EELV programme.QuoteWhat say there is no requirement to recover R&D investment, then launch costs only need to cover operational costs plus modest profit. Blue may well be in this situation, Bezos is funding Blue to get more people into space, not to grow his future in near term.We'll see either way.
So 2 reuses or 10 reuses is not going to bring down the launch cost very much at all. :(
It just won't
Why should SpaceX drops launch price when they are still cheaper than anyone else?..For the same reason why Spirit Airlines charges less.
They charge less because they can increase total revenue through a variety of mechanisms, most of which don't apply to the orbital launch market. Also, they have competition that's much more competitive than SpaceX's.Why should SpaceX drops launch price when they are still cheaper than anyone else?..For the same reason why Spirit Airlines charges less.
...Yeah it would.
So 2 reuses or 10 reuses is not going to bring down the launch cost very much at all. :(
It just won't
Cost. Price is whatever SX want to charge customers. And I'll repeat SX is not cheaper than all other suppliers in the comm sat market. It is competitive with Arianespace in this sector. It's not I'd-be-crazzzy-to-buy-a-launch-from-anyone-else good.If you're worried about launch risk however you'd go with Ariane 5 right now....
So 2 reuses or 10 reuses is not going to bring down the launch cost very much at all.
Cost or price? I can't imagine even 1 reuse not bringing the per launch expended cost down significantly.
Price, however needs a driver. SpaceX has no real reason to lower the price right now.
An order of magnitude more launches with the same manufacturing line. That'd DRAMATICALLY cut down on the cost per launch to SpaceX, thus giving them huge profits or allowing large price reductions.This story only works if there are enough payloads out there that will accept using F9 or FH at the prices SX charge.
As a customer I'd want substantially lower prices because SX are getting half their rocket back. I certainly don't want to pay the full (expendable) launch price. Can I have that offset against the cost of a future launch?
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.All things being equal you might be right. But then you factor in their recent safety record IE your chance of getting to orbit.
SpaceX just need to be cheaper, whether reusable or not, for people to use them in preference.
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.All things being equal you might be right. But then you factor in their recent safety record IE your chance of getting to orbit.
SpaceX just need to be cheaper, whether reusable or not, for people to use them in preference.
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.
The 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.
The 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?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
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.
FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit ???You 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 RTFQuoteI 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 ???Business As Usual. The shorthand term for when a company morphs into the Big Aerospace mindset. :(
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.This thread has nothing to do with Skylon but since you brought it in REL have worked hard to look at the worst case in terms of pricing and development costs.
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.As anyone on this thread should be aware. Thanks for reminding us of this important fact.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.aspx
This 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
$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.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.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.
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.
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):Indeed. A fully reusuable F9 seemed to be the plan up till around 2014. I'd love to know what SX have learned that turned that around. :(
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.I'd certainly agree with the reusable US, and a reusable PLF would simplify this however high flight rate would be needed to maintain revenue. Obviously the belief was the massively lowered launch cost would greatly increase the number of people willing to use space rather than a last resort.
And a reusable upper stage has never been "on hand" technology.True.
That's the same time ITS started to be formulated. I suspect a lot of it was that they realized they really wanted to move to methane long term because of the lack of coking. I don't think kerosene can ever be as fast turnaround as methane due to kerosene's coking requiring some cleaning. They decided not to do a rocket using both methane and kerosene for handling simplicity and because a methane stage really wants to be bigger.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):Indeed. A fully reusuable F9 seemed to be the plan up till around 2014. I'd love to know what SX have learned that turned that around. :(
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a7446/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023/
I thought you were talking about instead of making F9 and FH.I am still talking about alternate history; I was using Musk's statement as an example.
F1 is too small and FH too big for most payloads today. F9 is basically perfect in size and much better suited for SpaceX operations flows.Which is why I'm sceptical about the argument that upping the payload size lowers the $/lb price only if you can use the full payload.
there was a market for F5. Just that there was a larger one for F9 and they could also launch F5 payloads on F9. Heck, they launched F1 payloads with F9.
It's cheap in $/lb if the extra payload is used by someone else.there was a market for F5. Just that there was a larger one for F9 and they could also launch F5 payloads on F9. Heck, they launched F1 payloads with F9.
Doesn't the same apply to BFR/BFS.
It can launch anything and if fully and rapidly reusable should be (very) cheap.
So if launches a small payload the excess capacity/space will be filled with something.
A couple of recent documents have just been listed on NTRS that may be of interest to readers of this thread. One is a conference paper and the other is the presentation slides that accompany it.Abstracts usually include the conclusion; this one is pure tease (and long-winded at that). Would someone who's read the papers kindly provide a TL:DR. Many thanks.
Is It Worth It? - the Economics of Reusable Space Transportation
Abstract
...
Sorry to give it such a harsh review, but this is just not worth the time to read. No new insights expected.I've skimmed it.
there was a market for F5. Just that there was a larger one for F9 and they could also launch F5 payloads on F9. Heck, they launched F1 payloads with F9.
Doesn't the same apply to BFR/BFS.
It can launch anything and if fully and rapidly reusable should be (very) cheap.
So if launches a small payload the excess capacity/space will be filled with something.
for geosynchronous they are all compatible. Same altitude, same inclination. A slighter lower orbit will rotate around to the correct position. It can take as little delta-V as you like.QuoteDoesn't the same apply to BFR/BFS.
It can launch anything and if fully and rapidly reusable should be (very) cheap.
So if launches a small payload the excess capacity/space will be filled with something.
That really depends on whether you can get enough compatible payloads that want to go into compatible orbits at the same time.
I guess that would include Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos in the list of "apologists."Note, "apologist" in this context is not a perjorative usage but merely describing someone who offers arguments in support of a position/idea.
I guess that would include Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos in the list of "apologists."Note, "apologist" in this context is not a perjorative usage but merely describing someone who offers arguments in support of a position/idea.
I guess that would include Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos in the list of "apologists."Note, "apologist" in this context is not a perjorative usage but merely describing someone who offers arguments in support of a position/idea.
It also implies there is something to apologise for, which I do not think is the case. It's the wrong word.
It also implies there is something to apologise for
Best slide is #17 "cost of transportation systems" might be worth comparing the cost breakdown there with eter B. de Selding's article http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/A couple of recent documents have just been listed on NTRS that may be of interest to readers of this thread. One is a conference paper and the other is the presentation slides that accompany it.Abstracts usually include the conclusion; this one is pure tease (and long-winded at that). Would someone who's read the papers kindly provide a TL:DR. Many thanks.
Is It Worth It? - the Economics of Reusable Space Transportation
Abstract
...
In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
The performance upgrades where required for reusability. Basically all development after v1.0 was because parachute recovery failed.In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Sounds right to me. It does contrast extremely with rocket development cost of other launch service providers. Maybe the whole development cost after the 1.0. That was 300 million $, right?
Propulsive RTLS started, from what I know, just a bit after the first F9 flight. The parachutes were something they experimented with, but it was not the main plan from a very early date.The performance upgrades where required for reusability. Basically all development after v1.0 was because parachute recovery failed.In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
I'm trying to understand the practical nature of the "100 fold decrease to overall coast" statement Musk made in the post-launch news conference for SES-10. So, have I done this right...
If a baseline F9 cost $62M (SpaceX website) then to find the price after a 100 fold decrease, it's:
62/x = 100 fold.
Solving for x, I get 38.
So a 100 fold reduction in cost leads to a new value of $38M for a flight-proven core after a $24M reduction.
Have I done that right?
I'm trying to understand the practical nature of the "100 fold decrease to overall coast" statement Musk made in the post-launch news conference for SES-10. So, have I done this right...
If a baseline F9 cost $62M (SpaceX website) then to find the price after a 100 fold decrease, it's:
62/x = 100 fold.
Solving for x, I get 38.
So a 100 fold reduction in cost leads to a new value of $38M for a flight-proven core after a $24M reduction.
Have I done that right?
I took a hundred fold reduction as meaning two orders of magnitude. Meaning 62m/100 = $620k or 1% of the original cost. But I guess it depends on the exact context of the quote.
In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Was the 100 fold reduction not applicable in the long term, rather than immediately?
Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.The performance upgrades where required for reusability. Basically all development after v1.0 was because parachute recovery failed.In the SES-10 press conference Elon said SpaceX have spent something like a billion dollars developing re-usability. So there's a lot of development cost to pay off. Elon said there will be a 'meaningful' discount for re-using a booster now but they won't pass on full savings so development cost can be recouped.
Actually I'm not sure the $1B figure is for reusability alone, seems way too high for just the test program/grid fin/legs/ASDS etc. $1B is about 1000 engineers for 5 years, I think that's the total R&D they have invested in F9, which include all the performance upgrades too.
Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.
Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.
what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?
Shotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
Shotwell: Falcon booster refurbishment cost substantially less than 1/2 cost of new build; more done for SES-10 than future flights. #33SS
QuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
QuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
If the stated aim is to get F9 flying within a day, I can't see how you'd spend even a small fraction of that.
I believe she also stated that the next ones will be 1/10 that of the SES-10. So that puts refurbishment costs at <$2M.QuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
If the stated aim is to get F9 flying within a day, I can't see how you'd spend even a small fraction of that.
For the next few rockets SpaceX aims to refly, Shotwell said engineers will do about a tenth of the work that they did to refurbish the booster that launched March 30 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida with the SES 10 communications satellite.Costs = level of manpower "work" plus replaced parts value.
Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.
what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?
4680 kg, according to
https://web.archive.org/web/20101222155322/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
It never flew to GTO, though.
Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.
what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?
4680 kg, according to
https://web.archive.org/web/20101222155322/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
It never flew to GTO, though.
I think this is not v1.0.
I think that In the page they are advertising the planned second model of Falcon 9 which was supposed to have higher thrust "Merlin 1C+" engines, and they payloads are for that model. But instead they managed to make the even more powerful Merlin 1D engine and this version with the "merlin 1C+" never flew.
No, it's a version of v1.0 that never flew.
I believe she also stated that the next ones will be 1/10 that of the SES-10. So that puts refurbishment costs at <$2M.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/11/musk-wants-to-make-falcon-9-rocket-fully-reusable/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/11/musk-wants-to-make-falcon-9-rocket-fully-reusable/)QuoteFor the next few rockets SpaceX aims to refly, Shotwell said engineers will do about a tenth of the work that they did to refurbish the booster that launched March 30 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida with the SES 10 communications satellite.
The main kicker here is the effect such low refurbishment costs have on the cost per flight of an FH. At 10 flights per booster the average savings per flight is ~$20M for an F9. But for an FH it is $60M. Putting the pricing of an FH at about $15M more than an F9. If the new price of an F9 eventually gets to a value of $45M then the price for a FH would be ~$60M. That last flight flying as an expendable fully loaded would make the $/kg to LEO only $937.Those kind of cost improvements, other than computers, don't tend to keep going at the same breakneck pace over the long haul without some other technological revolution. Something beyond re-usability and optimal scale will probably be needed to get costs down to $80/kg. I would be happy to see anything under $800/kg for the next couple of decades. Even $800/kg will probably be enough of a reduction to open up significant growth in a space economy.
Now drop the price another $3M for reusing the faring.
Price $57M - $/kg $890.
Added:
By 2020 the $/kg potential could be as low as $800 this is a factor of 10 from where the $/kg was at prior to F9's first flight in 2010 ($10,000/kg for an Atlas V 551 - best cost performance of all US LVs). So a factor of 10 over 10 years. What will the next ten years bring? $80/kg! (This is the goal of the ITS BTW).
I am not sure I buy that 1B number as an actual out of pocket cost... I think it might be padded for customer benefit.
Thanks for the spreadsheet.
Now for the other item. How long will it take for SpaceX to recover their $1B investment in reuse.
At 25 flights / yr and 70% being used boosters and SpaceX recovering $10M to pay against this charge per reused booster flight it will be 6 years for them to recover this development cost. Number of flight goes up or % of reused to new goes up then the time for this recovery will shorten. At 90% and 35 flights per year it would take only 4 years. So with SpaceX's flight projections the recovery period will be closer to 4 than it will be to 6. Putting recovery period ending in 2021. So in 2022 the prices could drop an additional $10M for an F9 and as much as $30M for an FH. The key here is that SpaceX is still making the same amount of profit per flight as they are now but at prices are a lot lower.
This is a very stiff competition price point profile. Other LV's would be hard pressed to keep up unless they were fully reusable. These price drops would occur only 2 years after the NG and Vulcan are operating.
I was a little shocked at learning the 6,000 number. They haven't even ramped up for their constellation.Considering they have 6 major development projects (block 5, resuable US, CommX, Raptor, ITS and Dragon 2), numerous smaller development projects, 2 operation pads and 2 being built, attempting a launch cadence of 2 per month, etc. and that they are vertically integrated so that most of the costs fall on them, it is amazing the headcount is so low.
A second advantage of reusability is that it avoids SpaceX hitting the limits of Hawthorne factory (about 40 cores per year). Using expendable launches CommX plus their normal commercial customers would exceed that limit, so they would have considerable capital cost and time bringing a new factory on-line and expanding their Texas testing facilities.Great point! If launch demand grows significantly that will be a big advantage for both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Anyone without a reusable first stage will have a much higher overhead to maintain. The reusable in space ACES stage might be the sweet spot for ULA in the long haul for the same reason. It brings us back to the fuel depot argument. Cheap fuel to a depot and a reusable in space tug instead of an expendable second or third stage to get out of LEO. Add in SEP tugs and you have a pretty good cost effective solution for all sorts of destinations. Everything reusable.
I am not sure I buy that 1B number as an actual out of pocket cost... I think it might be padded for customer benefit. Remember that a lot of the experiments are done on hardware that otherwise is going into the ocean and is otherwise paid for. 1B buys a LOT of barge time/ tug time/fins and legs, etc
I believe that the pricing structure is headed towards the following:
1) If the contract specify use of new booster customer will be charged an additional fee.
2) Based on the landing mission mode (RTLS, ASDS, EXPD) this will control the basic price. There will be probably a stiff penalty for use of EXPD mode. These prices would assume no specificity by the contract on vehicle usage status.
This type of pricing structure will probably take over once the usage rate of used boosters get to the 70% level. But until then the pricing structure is a price and then discounts.
I am not sure I buy that 1B number as an actual out of pocket cost... I think it might be padded for customer benefit. Remember that a lot of the experiments are done on hardware that otherwise is going into the ocean and is otherwise paid for. 1B buys a LOT of barge time/ tug time/fins and legs, etcI think this type of calculation is much more interesting for ULA (or other new vendors) than SpaceX. Let's assume it costs about $1B more to develop an re-usable rocket than an expendable, as Musk has stated.
I would be interested in any rough budgets that people might have. We know tug rates and barge rates and stuff....
ok now i'm convincing myself that maybe it is 1B... but it's a self funded 1B ...
I am not sure I buy that 1B number as an actual out of pocket cost... I think it might be padded for customer benefit. Remember that a lot of the experiments are done on hardware that otherwise is going into the ocean and is otherwise paid for. 1B buys a LOT of barge time/ tug time/fins and legs, etcI think this type of calculation is much more interesting for ULA (or other new vendors) than SpaceX. Let's assume it costs about $1B more to develop an re-usable rocket than an expendable, as Musk has stated.
I would be interested in any rough budgets that people might have. We know tug rates and barge rates and stuff....
ok now i'm convincing myself that maybe it is 1B... but it's a self funded 1B ...
SpaceX has already spent the money - it's a sunk cost. Whether or not this was a good investment is irrelevant going forward. Provided it saves them anything at all, even only $1M per launch, it's still worth it for them to go reusable.
But for someone who has not spent the $1B for re-usability yet, these are very interesting numbers. How much can I save per launch? How many do I need to sell to recover my development cost? What kind of market share changes will I see with re-use? This type of calculation appears all the time in the airline industry (see discussion of how long it will take the 787 and A380 to pay back their development cost). Surely Boeing and LM, already experienced in this type of analysis, are applying this to Vulcan development and whether or not it should include re-usability.
I would like the terminology to change. Call rockets from SpaceX and Blue origin just rockets. Call everything else from other companies throwaway, disposable or single use rockets and put the negative connotation on them. You don't ever hear anybody call a 787 a reusable airplane. It's just assumed.
If by EOY 2018 or 2019 SpaceX is flying 20 reused booster flights and the total number of launches worldwide is 100 then the percentage of reuse to expendable is 20% reused to 80% expendable worldwide. If SpaceX expands their launch rate to 50 from 30 and those additional increase the world total to 120 with the the reuse count being 90% or 45 launches then the reuse to expendable ratio would be 37.5%/62.5%. Now add another expansion of 20 launches with 80% reused (the NGs) with total worldwide of 140 the ratio goes to 44%/56%. So sometime in the 2020's it is possible that the reuse launches will outnumber the expendable launches. As the number of launches on reuse capable vehicles grow and the number of expendable launches shrink.I would like the terminology to change. Call rockets from SpaceX and Blue origin just rockets. Call everything else from other companies throwaway, disposable or single use rockets and put the negative connotation on them. You don't ever hear anybody call a 787 a reusable airplane. It's just assumed.
That will happen when the numerical balance between expendable and reusable rockets shifts towards the latter. A similar thing happened with the introduction of jet aircraft.
I am not sure I buy that 1B number as an actual out of pocket cost... I think it might be padded for customer benefit.
I would describe the $1 billion as a number that doesn't impact the way in which SpaceX will run its business going forward. They will look more to cash-on-hand and supporting and keeping busy the 6,000 employees on the payroll as they change to being an RLV provider. And in this sense, they need to be thoughtful and careful.
I was a little shocked at learning the 6,000 number. They haven't even ramped up for their constellation.
6,000 also doesn't include running four pads flat out. With 400+ wanted ads out there as an indicator, and these new personnel demands on the near horizon, growth will continue to be robust for several years. Breaking 10,000 by 2020 is possible, IMO. (They've doubled in size in the last 3-4 years...)
Re-flight rate of only 67% here is the potential revenue/profit estimates (values are in Millions of US dollars):6,000 also doesn't include running four pads flat out. With 400+ wanted ads out there as an indicator, and these new personnel demands on the near horizon, growth will continue to be robust for several years. Breaking 10,000 by 2020 is possible, IMO. (They've doubled in size in the last 3-4 years...)
They definitely need big-time revenue. Perhaps they will go after the other satellite verticals. We all need a 10,000 satellite reconnaissance constellation, after all.
An item that just popped up in my thoughts on another thread is the manpower levels needed to support a launch every 2 weeks. At $1-2M for refurbishment and parts between flight that represents 5,000 to 10,000 manhours of refurbishment work on a booster. A crew of 25 would take from 5 to 10 weeks to do the refurbishment. To support an every other week flight the refurbishment crews should number in the 60 to 125 personnel. And they would be constantly busy with no down time unless the pad/vehicle is also in a significant launch downtime for some reason (failure investigation or severe weather event like a huricane).Thanks for that. These are the missing numbers for the modelling game.
An item that just popped up in my thoughts on another thread is the manpower levels needed to support a launch every 2 weeks. At $1-2M for refurbishment and parts between flight that represents 5,000 to 10,000 manhours of refurbishment work on a booster. A crew of 25 would take from 5 to 10 weeks to do the refurbishment. To support an every other week flight the refurbishment crews should number in the 60 to 125 personnel. And they would be constantly busy with no down time unless the pad/vehicle is also in a significant launch downtime for some reason (failure investigation or severe weather event like a huricane).Thanks for that. These are the missing numbers for the modelling game.
I think 2M for refurb costs is high if you're talking 24 hour turnarounds. Airliners are at similar price points (within an order of magnitude) for initial cost of the vehicle and don't spend nearly that much getting ready for their next flight. Maybe when they have scheduled overhauls and have to replace an engineFor general aviation passenger services the rule of thumb has been that total costs per flight were 3x the fuel costs. Given Musk has said F9 costs about $200K in propellant that would be about about $600-800K. However since unless the US is fully recoverable that will have to be written off and that's around $17m.
You may say that SpaceX can't achieve these turnaround times and costs but that's their goal. They may not make it... but I'm thinking a crew of 500 spending 2M in small parts? no. I could see the average cost being 1M IF you include the once every 10 flights heavy overhaul that might include some engine changeouts if an engine was found to be marginal.... but even that seems high.
Elon Musk has said they spent about a billion dollars developing recovery and reuse. So that needs to be recovered before they are making money with reuse. How long that takes depends on how much they discount the rockets for launch and how much it costs to refurbish them for the next launch. The issue boils down to the question - when do they make more money by reusing rockets than they spent on making them reusable?
An additional facet of this is "how much of your capabilities have you intentionally sacrificed to make your rocket reusable?" which is what ULA has been asking.
Which is a bogus question.
Payload has a fixed mass. You get paid for orbiting this payload. Any extra performance you have over this weight on this flight would not earn you a single extra dollar.
If you can orbit the payload of this fixed mass and land the stage, you "sacrificed" nothing for reusing this state.
If you can orbit the payload of this fixed mass only by expending the stage, you are no worse than your competitors who do not have reuse option at all.
ULA are not stupid, they know this too. They are just not yet resigned to accept the new reality.
I think 2M for refurb costs is high if you're talking 24 hour turnarounds. Airliners are at similar price points (within an order of magnitude) for initial cost of the vehicle and don't spend nearly that much getting ready for their next flight. Maybe when they have scheduled overhauls and have to replace an engineFor general aviation passenger services the rule of thumb has been that total costs per flight were 3x the fuel costs. Given Musk has said F9 costs about $200K in propellant that would be about about $600-800K. However since unless the US is fully recoverable that will have to be written off and that's around $17m.
You may say that SpaceX can't achieve these turnaround times and costs but that's their goal. They may not make it... but I'm thinking a crew of 500 spending 2M in small parts? no. I could see the average cost being 1M IF you include the once every 10 flights heavy overhaul that might include some engine changeouts if an engine was found to be marginal.... but even that seems high.
I'm interested in people's spitballs on what fairing refurb will cost. I am thinking you don't want to just keep painting over old logos as that increases the weight of the fairing each time.
I don't see why the expectation is that SpaceX will substantially reduce prices in accordance with their reusability cost savings. Musk said that they first want to recover the $1B reusability investment. But why stop even there?
I saw the calculations upthread showing 4 years required for recovery of the $1B investment. But what stops SpaceX from dropping their current launch price by just a marginal amount - from $62m to say $55m, and making a $30m gross profit per F9 launch for the foreseeable future?
At $62m they are already cheaper than any of their competitors. Going down another $7m would undercut everyone else even further, while still giving SpaceX massive profits per launch.
With a 70 launch manifest, at $30m profit per launch they could recover their $1B investment in just over 30 launches - possibly the number of flights they will do in one year in 2018. And still have a massive and growing manifest ahead.
And even after that, why not continue charging say $50m per launch until someone else can do it for $49m? Even at current prices they are charging towards 30 launches per year, so its not like demand isn't there.
30 launches at $30m profit per launch is better than 50 launches at only $10m profit per launch.
I don't see why the expectation is that SpaceX will substantially reduce prices in accordance with their reusability cost savings. Musk said that they first want to recover the $1B reusability investment. But why stop even there?
I saw the calculations upthread showing 4 years required for recovery of the $1B investment. But what stops SpaceX from dropping their current launch price by just a marginal amount - from $62m to say $55m, and making a $30m gross profit per F9 launch for the foreseeable future?
At $62m they are already cheaper than any of their competitors. Going down another $7m would undercut everyone else even further, while still giving SpaceX massive profits per launch.
With a 70 launch manifest, at $30m profit per launch they could recover their $1B investment in just over 30 launches - possibly the number of flights they will do in one year in 2018. And still have a massive and growing manifest ahead.
And even after that, why not continue charging say $50m per launch until someone else can do it for $49m? Even at current prices they are charging towards 30 launches per year, so its not like demand isn't there.
30 launches at $30m profit per launch is better than 50 launches at only $10m profit per launch.
Entirely agree. All they have the ensure is that they are cheaper than the competition and at least as reliable. I suspect they are almost there with both of those - still a few reused boosters to try to get some decent reliability figures.
Now for the other item. How long will it take for SpaceX to recover their $1B investment in reuse.
I don't see why the expectation is that SpaceX will substantially reduce prices in accordance with their reusability cost savings. Musk said that they first want to recover the $1B reusability investment. But why stop even there?
I saw the calculations upthread showing 4 years required for recovery of the $1B investment. But what stops SpaceX from dropping their current launch price by just a marginal amount - from $62m to say $55m, and making a $30m gross profit per F9 launch for the foreseeable future?
At $62m they are already cheaper than any of their competitors. Going down another $7m would undercut everyone else even further, while still giving SpaceX massive profits per launch.
With a 70 launch manifest, at $30m profit per launch they could recover their $1B investment in just over 30 launches - possibly the number of flights they will do in one year in 2018. And still have a massive and growing manifest ahead.
And even after that, why not continue charging say $50m per launch until someone else can do it for $49m? Even at current prices they are charging towards 30 launches per year, so its not like demand isn't there.
30 launches at $30m profit per launch is better than 50 launches at only $10m profit per launch.
Entirely agree. All they have the ensure is that they are cheaper than the competition and at least as reliable. I suspect they are almost there with both of those - still a few reused boosters to try to get some decent reliability figures.
Not so fast... lowering the price is the forcing function for market expansion.
Market expansion is essential for SpaceX to obtain needed revenue -- long term gain vs short term profits. This is why a private company is necessary for a while.
Now for the other item. How long will it take for SpaceX to recover their $1B investment in reuse.
I think the $1B number Elon threw out is being misunderstood. I think that was more like the cost of all Falcon 9 development to date.
Elon didn't explain what that estimate meant and I haven't seen any serious attempt to make sense of that number. SpaceX has spent a lot on launch pads, building rockets, Dragon, etc. Reuse would include the autonomous drone ships, Grasshopper and FR-Dev, Raptor, and lot of R&D. But $1 Billion? I don't buy it.
Also, note that Raptor development and a good deal of Falcon 9 and Dragon development were paid for by the government, the Air Force and NASA respectively. So SpaceX isn't even out $1B net on the Falcon 9 development, I don't think.
I'd be interested in other people's estimates of what Elon meant and what SpaceX's development expenses have been, and what funded it.
: I think just a little celebration is in order... If you just say, how much effort has SpaceX put into Falcon reusability, and nobody was paying us for reusability, so it had to be on our own dime, it's probably - at least a billion dollars that we spent developing this, so it'll take a while to pay that off. And then we need to get really efficient with the reuse of boosters and with the fairing. So I would expect the economics to start becoming sensible next year - so it's pretty close - and we expect the boosters to .. I mean, with no refurbishment, be capable of 10 flights, and with moderate refurbishment to be capable of 100 flights. So you can imagine that if the cost of the rocket is say 60 million dollars - really we're not re-using the whole thing, but - with the fairing, assuming fairing reuse works out, and as we optimize the cost of the reuse of the booster, really looking at maybe 3/4 of the rocket cost dropping by an order of magnitude, maybe more.
Six reflights this year, 24 next -- if 3/4ths of flights are reused, that is 32 flights next year (about what they are planning). If fraction reused takes longer to build up, maybe another year.
Then they start launching the constellation, and the reusable launchers will repay the investment or more every year thereafter in the form of profit or reduced capital expenditure. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
By the way, NASA/DoD did not pay for the F9/FH.
I don't understand this $1B figure. Isn't most of this simply the cost of developing the Merlin engine and the F9 system, through its various iterations? The incremental cost of developing reusability, given the initial version of the F9, does not seem anything like a billion dollars to me. The flight tests were essentially free, since they were added to commercial and government flights paid for by commercial and government customers, and the extra hardware needed was minimal. The grid fins and upgraded 'non-sticky' servos, as far as I know. The rest was already designed and built for the expendable version of F9. Add the cost of Grasshopper, the 'drone ships', landing zones, etc., and it still does not seem close to a billion dollars.
Perhaps because you have a narrow view of what its about. Like perhaps direct/fixed costs.
There's lots of other costs, including opportunity costs. Can easily see ways to find more than $2B in costs, so was surprised when he said just $1B. Think it is too low. Keep in mind the added cost of LOM's/RTF's brought on by the reuse agenda, as well as failed landings. If you don't use these as costs, you're cherry picking your numbers.
...
There's lots of other costs, including opportunity costs.Hmm. Has reuse really slowed their launch cadence ramp-up? Or were you thinking they'd be further ahead with some other project? Not Dragon 2 - that's been paced by NASA's budget. Falcon Heavy, perhaps? except that's actually being helped towards an affordable demonstration flight by reuse. So I don't know what opportunities you mean, specifically.
Keep in mind the added cost of LOM's/RTF's brought on by the reuse agendaCitation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.
as well as failed landings.What, the cost of the legs? the damage to the ASDS? - peanuts. Certainly you can't possibly mean the cost of the rocket bodies, since in the expendable scenario, they would be lost anyway.
I don't understand this $1B figure. Isn't most of this simply the cost of developing the Merlin engine and the F9 system, through its various iterations? The incremental cost of developing reusability, given the initial version of the F9, does not seem anything like a billion dollars to me. The flight tests were essentially free, since they were added to commercial and government flights paid for by commercial and government customers, and the extra hardware needed was minimal. The grid fins and upgraded 'non-sticky' servos, as far as I know. The rest was already designed and built for the expendable version of F9. Add the cost of Grasshopper, the 'drone ships', landing zones, etc., and it still does not seem close to a billion dollars.
There's lots of other costs, including opportunity costs.Hmm. Has reuse really slowed their launch cadence ramp-up? Or were you thinking they'd be further ahead with some other project? Not Dragon 2 - that's been paced by NASA's budget. Falcon Heavy, perhaps? except that's actually being helped towards an affordable demonstration flight by reuse. So I don't know what opportunities you mean, specifically.Keep in mind the added cost of LOM's/RTF's brought on by the reuse agendaCitation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.as well as failed landings.What, the cost of the legs? the damage to the ASDS? - peanuts. Certainly you can't possibly mean the cost of the rocket bodies, since in the expendable scenario, they would be lost anyway.
There's lots of other costs, including opportunity costs.Hmm. Has reuse really slowed their launch cadence ramp-up? Or were you thinking they'd be further ahead with some other project? Not Dragon 2 - that's been paced by NASA's budget. Falcon Heavy, perhaps? except that's actually being helped towards an affordable demonstration flight by reuse. So I don't know what opportunities you mean, specifically.Keep in mind the added cost of LOM's/RTF's brought on by the reuse agendaCitation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.as well as failed landings.What, the cost of the legs? the damage to the ASDS? - peanuts. Certainly you can't possibly mean the cost of the rocket bodies, since in the expendable scenario, they would be lost anyway.
Not the damage to the ASDS, the actual ASDS. Just the cost of designing, procuring, modifying, licensing, testing, and operating both of those ships during the reuse testing phase is in the mid to high double digit millions.
There's lots of other costs, including opportunity costs.Hmm. Has reuse really slowed their launch cadence ramp-up? Or were you thinking they'd be further ahead with some other project? Not Dragon 2 - that's been paced by NASA's budget. Falcon Heavy, perhaps? except that's actually being helped towards an affordable demonstration flight by reuse. So I don't know what opportunities you mean, specifically.Keep in mind the added cost of LOM's/RTF's brought on by the reuse agendaCitation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.as well as failed landings.What, the cost of the legs? the damage to the ASDS? - peanuts. Certainly you can't possibly mean the cost of the rocket bodies, since in the expendable scenario, they would be lost anyway.
Not the damage to the ASDS, the actual ASDS. Just the cost of designing, procuring, modifying, licensing, testing, and operating both of those ships during the reuse testing phase is in the mid to high double digit millions.
Which is still a small proportion of $1B.
Citation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.
Citation required. I see no evidence that Falcon 9's failures were a product of the drive for resuability. Their startup launch failure rate has not been at a level that would suggest that the attempt to re-use has played into more failures than expected. As I mentioned above, recovery of intact stages is more likely to play in to better reliability and fewer future failures.
How about they went to chilled LOX because they needed extra performance for reusability.
The question is:
would they have pushed for greater margins if they didn't want reusability?
Failed landings don't add the acquisition of the ASDS as an extra cost. The reusability program requires ASDS.as well as failed landings.What, the cost of the legs? the damage to the ASDS? - peanuts. Certainly you can't possibly mean the cost of the rocket bodies, since in the expendable scenario, they would be lost anyway.
Not the damage to the ASDS, the actual ASDS. Just the cost of designing, procuring, modifying, licensing, testing, and operating both of those ships during the reuse testing phase is in the mid to high double digit millions.
A lot of nonsense posts here. Will try one more time. With small words.Meaning the M1D and all its updates is part of those costs. Also included is the stage stretches, simulations, modeling software development, etc. That $1B represents a lot of work over more than 7 years.
Anything that deals with the path to reuse, including propulsion enhancement (to cover losses), is part of that $1B.
In theory, anything post F9 1.0. That I as an accountant/CFO can categorize as such.
And we are talking GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) rules here, not whatever nonsense rules you think up on your own.
It's nothing even up for debate.
But then there are people who debate physics, law, ... and think of them as if they are a form of ideology/politics/rhetoric. They're not.
Anything that deals with the path to reuse, including propulsion enhancement (to cover losses), is part of that $1B.
In theory, anything post F9 1.0.
Meaning the M1D and all its updates is part of those costs. Also included is the stage stretches, simulations, modeling software development, etc. That $1B represents a lot of work over more than 7 years.Falcon 9 1.0 /M1C was a perfectly usable Delta-II class vehicle with a significant manifest.
As an equivalent in manyears that $1B equals 5,000 manyears of work. Which implies a large portion of the manpower of SpaceX has been charging toward this work since 2010. That manpower will after this start work on the ITS in ever increasing amounts. Such that that recovery and profit from launch totaling an almost $20M / launch will go toward paying the continuation of the R&D work of future LVs. Estimate is that this is a value of up to $0.5B per year or enough to fund the work of as many as 2000 persons per year doing R&D.Agree, but I'd say since 2009.
This sizes the SpaceX R&D teams as a significant portion of all of SpaceX's manpower (~1/3).Musk would likely agree with this.
As SpaceX's manpower scales up for its operations this will also enable the scaling up of that significant portion of R&D staff. Such that 1 out of every 3 or 4 hires is for R&D work vs production/operations.
This is a very aggressive expansionist culture. It is also a self fulfilling cycle of lowering costs to be able to lower costs in the near future even more "rinse and repeat".
Yes there is. SX's original story. It would have covered the same market. Just done so in a different way.Anything that deals with the path to reuse, including propulsion enhancement (to cover losses), is part of that $1B.
In theory, anything post F9 1.0.
The problem is that there's no way for us to know what proportion of the cost of changes made (such as Merlin upgrades) were for re-use. Even as an ELV it's clear SpaceX would have upgraded to increase payload and thus the amount of the market F9 could serve.
$1B was Elon's off-the-cuff estimate of re-use cost but no way to know how accurate it is. So I think all we can take from this is that re-use development costs were substantial (at least 100s of millions, maybe well over a billion).
Saying US$ 1 billion is deliberately inaccurate. The real number is neither half a billion nor 1.5 billion. Probably within 20%.I don't understand this $1B figure. Isn't most of this simply the cost of developing the Merlin engine and the F9 system, through its various iterations? The incremental cost of developing reusability, given the initial version of the F9, does not seem anything like a billion dollars to me. The flight tests were essentially free, since they were added to commercial and government flights paid for by commercial and government customers, and the extra hardware needed was minimal. The grid fins and upgraded 'non-sticky' servos, as far as I know. The rest was already designed and built for the expendable version of F9. Add the cost of Grasshopper, the 'drone ships', landing zones, etc., and it still does not seem close to a billion dollars.
Maybe he gave an inflated price to scare away competitors.
Agree its hard to assess threat and scope/budget/schedule/program response.Maybe he gave an inflated price to scare away competitors.Saying US$ 1 billion is deliberately inaccurate. The real number is neither half a billion nor 1.5 billion. Probably within 20%.
The most important effect of an imprecise number is to prevent competitors from accurately comparing their estimates with what SpaceX actually spent.
The math competitors should be doing right now is either follow SpaceX or go out of business for sure in 10 years.They can also change business models.
The real scary scenario is by the time the competitor has booster reuse going on, SpaceX likely already has the whole stack reusable with total recovery+refurb costs under 10% of building a new booster+upper stage+fairing and with launch capability limited only by available pad capacity.Even with all of these they'd still have launches. SX does not do everything, is not a "magic bullet".
The math competitors should be doing right now is either follow SpaceX or go out of business for sure in 10 years.
The real scary scenario is by the time the competitor has booster reuse going on, SpaceX likely already has the whole stack reusable with total recovery+refurb costs under 10% of building a new booster+upper stage+fairing and with launch capability limited only by available pad capacity.
.>
Which is why I'm honestly concerned about ULA, since they are at a point where they can either be the next launch provider to announce they are pursuing 1st stage reusability, or they will be vying to be one of the last to build an expendable launch system.
Launch customers don't want a monopoly for launch services, no matter how benign it supposedly may be. Which means they will continue to spread around their business to a number of launch providers.
Another conclusion is that If SpaceX can actually work out the recovery reuse of an US then the FH (1st Stage +US+Faring) fully reusable woulkd have an internal SpaceX cost at very close to the same as an F9 (1st Stage +Faring) partial reusable. This internal cost value would be ~$30M.
But the real kicker is the payload capability difference FH-FR payload to LEO -> 20mt and the F9-PR payload to LEO ->16mt. Also you do not have to manufacture a new US for each flight. This increases the capability to fly more often.
If both are priced the same at $50M ($20M in profit for recovery of past development spending and future R&D work) the $/kg measure of the vehicles would be FH-FR $2,500/kg and the F9-PR $3,125/kg.
If then they are able to recover an US from GTO they then have a complete replacement and fully reusable stack for 90% of all of their manifested payloads. Suddenly the bottleneck of manufacture of an US for each flight goes away enabling the possibility of flying 1 a week from each operational pad 200+ launches a year. The manufacturing facility would still be going full tilt producing 20 US (10 uses) and 20 1st stages (30 uses because less stress and there are three boosters use per every 1 US use) a year.
Now with 200 launches per year and reducing the price to only a $5M margin ->$35M/launch the profit is still very large at $1B/yr.
Also at these rates the other costs may also reduce enabling the costs to go down another $5M to $10M to $20 or $25M making the price as low as $25M/launch with SpaceX still making a $5M profit.
Suddenly the tourist business case of 6 tourists on a reused D2 where the total price of launching 6 tourist to LEO is $40M. Less than $7M per seat.
This is if SpaceX does not develop any other game changing LV technology vehicle. A probably price for an ITS that delivers 200 tourists to LEO at $60M/launch is $300,000/person. Practically the same price as the current suborbital price/person. A factor of 20 reduction in per seat price over that of the fully reusable FH+D2.
>
I want to understand the $30m price tag you estimated for a fully reusable FH. How is that calculated? It seems somewhat high to me, considering that Elon's goal is a price reduction of an order of magnitude or maybe even two orders of magnitude with full reusability.
By my count, to construct a FH rocket costs say $60m for the centre core, upper stage and fairing, and say another $80m for the two side boosters. So let's call that $140m.
>
>
I want to understand the $30m price tag you estimated for a fully reusable FH. How is that calculated? It seems somewhat high to me, considering that Elon's goal is a price reduction of an order of magnitude or maybe even two orders of magnitude with full reusability.
By my count, to construct a FH rocket costs say $60m for the centre core, upper stage and fairing, and say another $80m for the two side boosters. So let's call that $140m.
>
Except that they'll be making extensive use of flight proven stages for the FH side boosters, throwing your numbers way off. The FH maiden flight will use them.
True, but ISTM their amortized value for any given re-launch depends on how many times they've already flown. Flight #2 being a more valuable stage than flight #8.
True, but ISTM their amortized value for any given re-launch depends on how many times they've already flown. Flight #2 being a more valuable stage than flight #8.
In terms of when we might see significant price declines, Shotwell admits “it will take a few years” for the contracts to come in. However, SpaceX has invested a lot of money in this particular area. “We want to make sure we are fair about that cost. Frankly, the final spin on Falcon 9 will be rolling out a little bit later than mid-year, and that is really the stage that rolls in all the lessons learned on reusability that we have learnt to date. Those vehicles will be highly reusable — 10 times at least. When those vehicles are flying regularly, we will start seeing more pressure around the launch price side,” she adds.
Hat tip to gongora for bringing this to our attention in another thread. Interview with Gwynne Shotwell:
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/april-2017/shotwell-ambitious-targets-achievable-this-year/QuoteIn terms of when we might see significant price declines, Shotwell admits “it will take a few years” for the contracts to come in. However, SpaceX has invested a lot of money in this particular area. “We want to make sure we are fair about that cost. Frankly, the final spin on Falcon 9 will be rolling out a little bit later than mid-year, and that is really the stage that rolls in all the lessons learned on reusability that we have learnt to date. Those vehicles https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/Themes/nsf2/images/bbc/underline.gifwill be highly reusable — 10 times at least. When those vehicles are flying regularly, we will start seeing more pressure around the launch price side,” she adds.
So, final version of F9 rolling out this summer, will be reusable at least 10x. But it will be a few years before SpaceX recoups their investment and can pass significant cost savings on to customers.
From the same VIA interview:
"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."
Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?
Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.
From the same VIA interview:
"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."
Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?
Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.
If a Falcon 9 first stage costs $40 million to build, $5 million to refurbish between flights, but launches ten times, the aggregate cost to SpaceX per Falcon 9 becomes $85 million for ten first stage launches, plus second stage. SpaceX could keep a guestimated margin of $10 million per launch by charging $30 million. Barring an explosion in launch customers, I don't imagine they'll necessarily get that low, let alone try to go lower, lest they leave money on the table that they need for ITS.
...Everyone keeps going on about how SpaceX can drop the price dramatically and still make $10m profit per launch. But that's clearly not what they're saying. Both Musk and Shotwell have now repeatedly said that the effect on launch prices will not be significant until they have recovered their investment costs.
Shotwell's latest interview above makes that even clearer. They are not going to drop the launch price to $30m to make a $10m profit. Instead, they are clearly indicating that at least for the forseeable future they are going to do something along the lines of dropping it to $55m or maybe at best $50m, and by implication try to make $30m profit per launch, or maybe even more.
Which I think is exactly the right approach.
From the same VIA interview:
"It [reusable technology] will drive down prices but that part is not going to be that significant, I don’t think, at least not early on. We have invested heavily in this technology. It will certainly pay off in the long-term in terms of pushing prices low, but obviously we have to gain back our investment before launch prices drop crazy low."
Isn't the general consensus we are talking about 3 years (maybe less) for recouping the investment?
Will be interesting then to see what "crazy low" is.
If a Falcon 9 first stage costs $40 million to build, $5 million to refurbish between flights, but launches ten times, the aggregate cost to SpaceX per Falcon 9 becomes $85 million for ten first stage launches, plus second stage. SpaceX could keep a guestimated margin of $10 million per launch by charging $30 million. Barring an explosion in launch customers, I don't imagine they'll necessarily get that low, let alone try to go lower, lest they leave money on the table that they need for ITS.
I was about to respond to your original post. I see you've since clarified it to cast at least a little bit of doubt over the $30m estimate, but it is still held up as a target.
And that's what I don't understand. Everyone keeps going on about how SpaceX can drop the price dramatically and still make $10m profit per launch. But that's clearly not what they're saying. Both Musk and Shotwell have now repeatedly said that the effect on launch prices will not be significant until they have recovered their investment costs.
Shotwell's latest interview above makes that even clearer. They are not going to drop the launch price to $30m to make a $10m profit. Instead, they are clearly indicating that at least for the forseeable future they are going to do something along the lines of dropping it to $55m or maybe at best $50m, and by implication try to make $30m profit per launch, or maybe even more.
Which I think is exactly the right approach.
The $30 million figure is useful as a pragmatic (but unlikely to be realized) lower bound on Falcon 9 launch costs with first-stage reuse alone.
They don't have to. They have enough of a manifest to satisfy.
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
$30M in costs for a fully reusable FH or a partial reusable F9 (that is costs internal to SpaceX no profit added).
NOTE the cost of the 1st stage manufacture is estimated at $25M.
Also the all up costs (no profit) no reuse for an F9 is $53M add $9M for profit resulting in a price of $62M.
F9 Partial reusable
$15M for new US
$4M for the refurbishment ($2M), recovery costs ($.5M), and amortization costs ($1.5M) over average of 20 flights for the stage's manufacture.
$7M for the launch processing and launch. This includes mate and checkout, payload handling, operations, range fees, and prop. (NOTE this value comes from Ms Shotwell herself in a statement made a few years ago)
$2M for the recovery and refurbishment of faring which includes the amortization of the faring cost manufacture.
$2M slush margin for unexpected costs such as weather delays or other scrubs.
Total Costs $30M
FH Fully Reusable
$5M for US refurbishment($3M), recovery ($.5M) and amoritization over 10 flights ($1.5M)
$12M 3X for the refurbishment ($2M), recovery costs ($.5M), and amortization costs ($1.5M) over average of 20 flights for the stage's manufacture.
$9M for the launch processing and launch. ($1M each extra for the two additioanal boosters). This includes mate and checkout, payload handling, operations, range fees, and prop. (NOTE this value comes from Ms Shotwell herself in a statement made a few years ago)
$2M for the recovery and refurbishment of faring which includes the amortization of the faring cost manufacture.
$2M slush margin for unexpected costs such as weather delays or other scrubs.
Total Costs $30M
Over time and at higher flight rates the Launch processing, refurbishment costs, and slush margin may be reduced for a reduction of almost up to $10M for fully reusable FH but only $5M for a partial reusable F9. Possibly getting the costs per flight to as low as $20M in 7 years from now 2024/25. This then would also make the use of the fully reusable FH cheaper per flight than the partial reusable F9: FH $20M vs F9 $25M.
If you then add profit margin of only $5M to these high volume launches of the fully reusable FH, then the price per flight of up to 20mt to LEO becomes $25M or just $1,250/kg->$568/lb.
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
According to Shotwell, they are selling 7+ tons to subsync GTO on the Falcon 9.
They don't have to. They have enough of a manifest to satisfy.
Do they? According to Salo's launch schedule, Falcon 9 has 42 flights left for 2017 and 2018. That's quite a lot for any expendable launcher, but if SpaceX hits its reusable stride, it would seem that 2018 might still have some manifest availability.
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
According to Shotwell, they are selling 7+ tons to subsync GTO on the Falcon 9.
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilitiesSo far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
According to Shotwell, they are selling 7+ tons to subsync GTO on the Falcon 9.
...
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
...
But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
So you are saying that ULA is lying when listing the Atlas V base price at $109m?But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
Atlas V is $180m at best.
A base price doesn't launch a 5.5mT satellite to GEO-1800m/s. That runs $137 million for a Q4/2018 launch. And that's just at their core services level. Want more service, tack on many more millions.So you are saying that ULA is lying when listing the Atlas V base price at $109m?But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
Atlas V is $180m at best.
https://www.rocketbuilder.com/
So you are saying that ULA is lying when listing the Atlas V base price at $109m?But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
Atlas V is $180m at best.
https://www.rocketbuilder.com/
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilitiesSo far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
According to Shotwell, they are selling 7+ tons to subsync GTO on the Falcon 9.
Shows 5.5mT to GTO for $62m. I'm sure they will sell higher but I doubt they will sell at that price and I would be interested in finding out what that price is.
[EDIT. I note from Shotwell interviews their near term goal is a 2 week launch cadence ]
But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"You're not a customer. An actual customer recently said:
Maxim Zayakov, chief executive of BulgariaSat, said the use of a reused first stage lowers the launch price and “makes it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.” [...]The satellite is a major undertaking for BulgariaSat, which has been working on the project for nearly 12 years. “Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of [the] space industry.”
Apparently NASA is providing that launch to ESA, so it might still have the usual government prices:So you are saying that ULA is lying when listing the Atlas V base price at $109m?But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
Atlas V is $180m at best.
https://www.rocketbuilder.com/
I was not aware ULA started to publicly announce their prices. This is progress.
I would like to compare prices mentioned on website to the actual prices paid. US Govt missions tend to cost more (because more oversight and more paperwork), so lets look at commercial and foreign launches.
Anyone knows how much was paid for EchoStar 19 launch? For WorldView-4? WorldView-3? MEXSAT-2?
(This list of 4 non-US-govt launches goes back to 2013).
I see only one "sort-of" non-govt launch on the manifest, Solar Orbiter aka "SolO" (it's an ESA mission). How much will it cost for ESA?
So WRT to the thread title reusability will probably increase SX profits by lowering their costs.
Reusability should improve reliability as SX now know how close to their designed operating limits various components have been.
If they deliver full reusability including the US then they will be in a position to save a lot of money.
But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
My main interest is in lowering the mission price to the end user both on a $/lb and an overall mission price basis (Pegasus is cheaper than an F9 flight, but it's also less than 1/20 the payload).
This does not sound like it's going to move the market forward very much. The market is what it is because of the price of launch for the size of payload. If that does not change radically there is absolutely no reason why any new customers will enter the market who wouldn't have done so anyway.
Apparently NASA is providing that launch to ESA, so it might still have the usual government prices:
"The launch from Cape Canaveral in Florida will be aboard a NASA-provided launch vehicle."
- http://sci.esa.int/solar-orbiter/55772-solar-orbiter-launch-moved-to-2018/
NASA lists the cost to them for that launch as $172.7m:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/march/nasa-awards-launch-services-contract-for-solar-orbiter-mission/
However this was 3 years back and ULA is known to have dropped their prices in the recent years. Their website shows a price of $136-138m(depending on fairing length) for an Atlas V 411 launch with all the services except for marketing, so given that it's still at least sort of a government launch and the prices may have dropped since then, the prices on their website sound reasonable.
IOW, we don't know any Atlas V launch which was less than $172m for the customer.
So, I was wrong, Atlas V is not $180m, it's $170m. ;)
Orbital Chief Executive David W. Thompson declined to detail the reductions the company was able to secure for the launch but said ULA’s announced effort to bring Atlas 5 prices down from $150 million to something closer to $100 million was confirmed with the new contract.
Centennial, Colorado-based ULA is “serious about getting Atlas down to [those] levels. … We certainly saw some of that” in booking the March 2016 flight, Thompson said in a conference call with investors.
NASA pays more for a Commercial Cargo launch from SpaceX than your quoted figures. Original contract was about $133M per launch; most recent contract is about the same by some estimates.So WRT to the thread title reusability will probably increase SX profits by lowering their costs.
Reusability should improve reliability as SX now know how close to their designed operating limits various components have been.
If they deliver full reusability including the US then they will be in a position to save a lot of money.
But as a customer I find myself saying "so what?"
So far I'd be booking on an LV with a 93% success rate that's has 33 launch attempts and 2 explosions.
I also know that if my comm sat goes above about 5.6 tonnes I won't get the sticker price of $62m but more like the regular Ariane price of $100m with a 100% success rate over the last 70+ launches or an Atlas V if I have to use a US launcher with a 100% success rate over 50+ launches.
My main interest is in lowering the mission price to the end user both on a $/lb and an overall mission price basis (Pegasus is cheaper than an F9 flight, but it's also less than 1/20 the payload).
This does not sound like it's going to move the market forward very much. The market is what it is because of the price of launch for the size of payload. If that does not change radically there is absolutely no reason why any new customers will enter the market who wouldn't have done so anyway.
I doubt a F9 expendable launch is $100M. Back when SpaceX was pricing full-capability launches, they were about 16% more than an 80% capability launch, which puts an expendable mission at about $72M. And soon, you might be able to buy an expendable mission on a used booster for a discount. If the discount is 10% for reuse then up to 8.3 tonnes to GTO-1800 could be as low as $65M (FH RTLS could also be similar).
And the sticker price of $62.2M is ONLY for missions that require a new booster, but are under 5.5 tonnes to GTO-1800. If you can live with a used booster you can get the same service for at least 10% less than $62.2M, which is $56M or about half the cost of an Ariane launch.
Most commercial customers don't assume a lot of risk for launch failures. The payload and its first year revenue are typically insured, so as long as insurance is comparable then schedule reliability is the biggest factor. With reuse and more pads this could quickly become a factor strongly in SpaceX's favor, especially since they don't have to line up two payloads for a launch like Ariane.
I doubt a F9 expendable launch is $100M. Back when SpaceX was pricing full-capability launches, they were about 16% more than an 80% capability launch, which puts an expendable mission at about $72M. And soon, you might be able to buy an expendable mission on a used booster for a discount. If the discount is 10% for reuse then up to 8.3 tonnes to GTO-1800 could be as low as $65M (FH RTLS could also be similar).NASA pays more for a Commercial Cargo launch from SpaceX than your quoted figures. Original contract was about $133M per launch; most recent contract is about the same by some estimates.
And the sticker price of $62.2M is ONLY for missions that require a new booster, but are under 5.5 tonnes to GTO-1800. If you can live with a used booster you can get the same service for at least 10% less than $62.2M, which is $56M or about half the cost of an Ariane launch.
Most commercial customers don't assume a lot of risk for launch failures. The payload and its first year revenue are typically insured, so as long as insurance is comparable then schedule reliability is the biggest factor. With reuse and more pads this could quickly become a factor strongly in SpaceX's favor, especially since they don't have to line up two payloads for a launch like Ariane.
These movements are a nice windfall for customers, both public sector and private, but something of a cost challenge for launch providers. If movement to take advantage of these discounts gains momentum, we'll see tightening bottom lines for launch vendors due to deep price cuts and lost launch opportunities and the continued retirement of launch vehicles with incredibly long strings of successful launches. Delta IV-M is first, Ariane 5 or Delta Heavy will follow... other established launchers such as Proton and Atlas V will be discarded or 'evolved'. The entire composition of the launch world could be rearranged over the next decade, despite the howls of protest* from those rooted in the status quo.But SpaceX needs an explosion in launch volume to truly justify eventually reducing launch contracts by over 60 or 70% (perhaps even more). Its not enough to save a bundle on boosters and upper stages being reused. 6000 employees (and rising) require a lot of revenue just to make payroll and other bills.
* Past, present, and future. Guaranteed.
An actual customer recently said:Surrey Satellite Technology have been helping "small countries" put significant missions together and fly them as secondaries for decades. this sounds like a payload that's been a long time in building and had borderline funding to begin with.QuoteMaxim Zayakov, chief executive of BulgariaSat, said the use of a reused first stage lowers the launch price and “makes it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.” [...]The satellite is a major undertaking for BulgariaSat, which has been working on the project for nearly 12 years. “Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of [the] space industry.”
Link: http://spacenews.com/bulgarian-satellite-to-launch-on-reused-falcon-9-in-june
But SpaceX needs an explosion in launch volume to truly justify eventually reducing launch contracts by over 60 or 70% (perhaps even more). Its not enough to save a bundle on boosters and upper stages being reused. 6000 employees (and rising) require a lot of revenue just to make payroll and other bills.True. In fact for that kind of price reduction you need full reusability. But with massive price reduction you have a massive fall in per launch revenue, unless you have an (equally) massive rise in launch numbers. [EDIT but the conventional ELV launch model ("here's your ticket. Have your payload ready in 2 years") may not be enough for this to happen. The ability to recover payloads (so designs can be corrected and iterated) seems equally important, on a cycle of months, not years. Like booking flights for sounding rockets, or zero g simulator aircraft ]
Actually... A properly sized 9 raptor first stage with a single raptor upper stage can also deliver hugely even if the upper stage is expendable, if each launch could be worth US$ 150-200 million like I suggested. In such a scenario, as long as the upper stage costs up to US$ 30 million, and can be mass produced efficiently, such a scenario could be far more economical than using FH to launch modest mass payloads in order to get the upper stage back. It really depends on how much performance reusing the F9/FH upper stage would take.But SpaceX needs an explosion in launch volume to truly justify eventually reducing launch contracts by over 60 or 70% (perhaps even more). Its not enough to save a bundle on boosters and upper stages being reused. 6000 employees (and rising) require a lot of revenue just to make payroll and other bills.True. In fact for that kind of price reduction you need full reusability. But with massive price reduction you have a massive fall in per launch revenue, unless you have an (equally) massive rise in launch numbers.
These facts have been known for decades by LV mfgs and are a key brake on changes to the one mfg/one operator business model. :(
Well, again, you can reduce prices significantly without reducing profit significantly, as long as you have a monopoly on reusability. Spacex can simply stick to charging say $45m per launch, even if it costs them just $20m. Until someone else also masters reusability. Then they just start undercutting the newcomer as required.Except in my idea GEO customers are getting a much, much, much better bang for their buck, and SpaceX is getting better return per payload delivered to orbit.
SpaceX has absolutely no reason to charge much less then the market will bear... from a business standpoint.Except Elon Musk has a solid track record of caring more about growth than profit.
As long as the COST (all in) of a launch is less then the PRICE agreed to in the contract = PROFIT
My opinion... the "market" thinks about $10 million profit is about right per launch...
And SpaceX (rightly so) has clearly put out there...
"Hey, we spent $1 billion R&D on this and we want to recoup that over the next few years"
That statement justifies them charging well above market perceived cost for the next few years... ;)
An actual customer recently said:Surrey Satellite Technology have been helping "small countries" put significant missions together and fly them as secondaries for decades. this sounds like a payload that's been a long time in building and had borderline funding to begin with.QuoteMaxim Zayakov, chief executive of BulgariaSat, said the use of a reused first stage lowers the launch price and “makes it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.” [...]The satellite is a major undertaking for BulgariaSat, which has been working on the project for nearly 12 years. “Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of [the] space industry.”
Link: http://spacenews.com/bulgarian-satellite-to-launch-on-reused-falcon-9-in-june
I don't see one flight, that would have flown on the lowest cost launch opportunity they could get (probably F9 anyway) being statistically significant.
SpaceX has absolutely no reason to charge much less then the market will bear... from a business standpoint....
Except Elon Musk has a solid track record of caring more about growth than profit.
Right now, Elon can't get more market share by lowering prices - his manifest is already full for the next few years. In this situation, lowering costs even more would be ridiculous.Full manifest vs what launch capacity ?
Elon needs to launch faster (of course, he knows that), and _then_, when he has free slots in the manifest, he can lower prices to attract more customers.
Right now, Elon can't get more market share by lowering prices - his manifest is already full for the next few years. In this situation, lowering costs even more would be ridiculous.Full manifest vs what launch capacity ?
Elon needs to launch faster (of course, he knows that), and _then_, when he has free slots in the manifest, he can lower prices to attract more customers.
Are you saying LC40 isn't coming up this year ?
Are you saying more customers aren't going to sign up for re used boosters (dramatically reducing Hawthorne and McGregor bottlenecks)?
SpaceX is aiming for a launch per week perhaps still this year once LC40 is up.
And don't forget Boca Chica.
An actual customer recently said:Surrey Satellite Technology have been helping "small countries" put significant missions together and fly them as secondaries for decades. this sounds like a payload that's been a long time in building and had borderline funding to begin with.QuoteMaxim Zayakov, chief executive of BulgariaSat, said the use of a reused first stage lowers the launch price and “makes it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.” [...]The satellite is a major undertaking for BulgariaSat, which has been working on the project for nearly 12 years. “Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of [the] space industry.”
Link: http://spacenews.com/bulgarian-satellite-to-launch-on-reused-falcon-9-in-june
I don't see one flight, that would have flown on the lowest cost launch opportunity they could get (probably F9 anyway) being statistically significant.
Except Elon Musk has a solid track record of caring more about growth than profit.
Right now, Elon can't get more market share by lowering prices - his manifest is already full for the next few years. In this situation, lowering costs even more would be ridiculous.Full manifest vs what launch capacity ?
Elon needs to launch faster (of course, he knows that), and _then_, when he has free slots in the manifest, he can lower prices to attract more customers.
Are you saying LC40 isn't coming up this year ?
Are you saying more customers aren't going to sign up for re used boosters (dramatically reducing Hawthorne and McGregor bottlenecks)?
More customers can't sign up for a launch in 2017 or 2018 - SpaceX is fully booked. The best you can get is a launch somewhere in 2019. It's as simple as that.
...
True, but the expected market elasticity will be to a large extend due to those kind of "borderline funded" customers. So they will not be statistically insignificant.The difference between $55m and $62m is simply not big enough to get a lot of new developers thinking "Yes now I can close a business case for this."
It may not be statistically significant in many ways, but one way it is significant is in that it shows there are customers out there who are waiting for cheap launch, because current prices are too high for them.Current prices are probably too high for 90% of the people who would like to launch a payload into space (including humans).
That is a relatively untapped/unserviced market. How many? Who knows, but I expect you could find a lot of scientists out there with ideas for craft that are desparately waiting for prices to drop to they can build and launch.Historically the funding for the satellite or probe is separate from the that of the LV. The theory behind large probes is economies of scale but personally I think there's a lot to be said for building probes around secondary payload adaptors, with one or two instruments going than a dozen that have taken a decade to get ready.
If you are buying a comm sat today, is there a vendor on the planet that can deliver it before 2019 (19 months)?True in general, but a customer might have a satellite that was ordered already and finds out they can save money and launch sooner if they switch to SpaceX.
True, but the expected market elasticity will be to a large extend due to those kind of "borderline funded" customers. So they will not be statistically insignificant.The difference between $55m and $62m is simply not big enough to get a lot of new developers thinking "Yes now I can close a business case for this."
AFAIK this project would have happened anyway, it's brought their timetable forward a bit.
For serious market growth you have to get to a price point where people who've had ideas sitting in the bottom of desk drawers for decades (because you can't sell the product they make no matter how good it it at a price that can make a profit and cover all the launch, and re-launch costs) start pulling them out and talking to VC's.
I'm sure SX can recover their development budget. The question becomes what happens to their prices then?
This project certainly did happen without reuse being a factor... it started 11 years ago. But it does sound like the SpaceX pricing was a factor in the decision to do this first comm sat.IOW it's a slight move of the launch timetable to the right, not something that would have never happened if SX was not flying. So not an addition to the launch market.
$55M vs $62M isn't the issue -- it is $62M (instead of $100-150M) is here to stay and maybe get much better. Planning for edge-case customers involves how far can one stretch, and the worst that can happen is cost escalation after decisions start to be made.Given the large proportion of government payloads (any government) launch price inflation has not historically been that big a concern for a substantial portion of the market in any significant practical way. :(
If the long term price ceiling is now $60M, then many more edge-case customers can afford to investigate and eventually buy their first (or second, third, ...) launch.I'd like to hear from people who've actually had to do it how much easier raising $60m+ is than raising $100m+. I note that is for payloads below 5.5mT to GTO.
Given the large proportion of government payloads (any government) launch price inflation has not historically been that big a concern for a substantial portion of the market in any significant practical way. :(
Except Elon Musk has a solid track record of caring more about growth than profit.
If he had unlimited funds he could do this, but he doesn't. he needs to strike a happy balance between growth and profit to ensure the companies survival, but also to ensure he stays in charge (i.e. he cannot risk a float to gain funding)
They need positive (or at least neutral) cashflow. They have a large engineering team and ambitions far beyond survival. I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.Except Elon Musk has a solid track record of caring more about growth than profit.
If he had unlimited funds he could do this, but he doesn't. he needs to strike a happy balance between growth and profit to ensure the companies survival, but also to ensure he stays in charge (i.e. he cannot risk a float to gain funding)
All he needs is free cashflow. Profit is accounting event which can be adjusted by assumptions around all sorts of things. If the company was quoted on the stock market it would be more important from an investor point of view as it helps define the value of the stock. But any company can survive if it produces free cash each year, profitably or unprofitably
I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.Historically LV suppliers have basically said "this is what it costs, pay us."
Musk has pushed prices lower. The question is will he continue to do so once the development costs of partial reuse are recovered?
Yes there are a lot of projects all needing cash.Musk has pushed prices lower. The question is will he continue to do so once the development costs of partial reuse are recovered?
I don't think this has a meaning.
Development costs were somewhat higher due to reuse. There is no notional lender who lent them this money.
They are not going to transfer into a 'normal' space company.
There will always be a new project to take the money, that you might consider as now going into 'paying back the development cost', whether it's Red Dragon, FH, Dragon 2-moon, Raptor, bbootstrapping CommX, ITS, mars-ISRU, mars-boring, ...
They haven't borrowed money to do reuse.I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.Historically LV suppliers have basically said "this is what it costs, pay us."
Musk has pushed prices lower. The question is will he continue to do so once the development costs of partial reuse are recovered?
They haven't borrowed money to do reuse.I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.Historically LV suppliers have basically said "this is what it costs, pay us."
Musk has pushed prices lower. The question is will he continue to do so once the development costs of partial reuse are recovered?
They don't have a running account that they need to put back on.
Their concern is far more in the lines of replenishing every cent of cash they burned after AMOS-6 until they returned to flight. And put aside the mountain of cash they'll need to manufacture the first batch of CommX satellites, the first large Raptor rockets and the large list of upcoming plans SpaceX has.
They haven't borrowed money to do reuse.That's not really an argument for SX to continue to lower their prices (prices to customers, not costs to themselves) though, is it? :(
They don't have a running account that they need to put back on.
Their concern is far more in the lines of replenishing every cent of cash they burned after AMOS-6 until they returned to flight. And put aside the mountain of cash they'll need to manufacture the first batch of CommX satellites, the first large Raptor rockets and the large list of upcoming plans SpaceX has.
I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.I was thinking about this; if Musk pushes prices too low (too quickly), could it actually deter others from entering the market?
Markets are interesting creatures. If someone can do it cheaper then others will push to undercut fighting for market share.I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.I was thinking about this; if Musk pushes prices too low (too quickly), could it actually deter others from entering the market?
I am neither arguing for just a 5/10% discount neither passing through their entire savings. Probably 1/3 of the savings at first, eventually half.I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.I was thinking about this; if Musk pushes prices too low (too quickly), could it actually deter others from entering the market?
Markets are interesting creatures. If someone can do it cheaper then others will push to undercut fighting for market share.I hope once CommX comes on line they will reduce prices more as a continued forcing functioning for the rest of the industry.I was thinking about this; if Musk pushes prices too low (too quickly), could it actually deter others from entering the market?
So going cheaper is actually good for the market.
A BTW looking at 2016 launch statistics by country if SpaceX for 2017 is considered it's own country it would be the #1 launcher compared to any country.
This year if SpaceX actually does 25
Currently globally there is a total of 80 to 100 launches to orbit of everything per year. SpaceX providing such a supply would make it such that schedule would no longer be a concern since demand would be a long way behind the supply.But the odds of that actually happening are pretty long. :(
Making the Prices for the launch the deciding factor for just about any customer commercial or government, even foreign governments. The following could be a consideration for foreign governments: If the "In-House" provider can't launch when desired they will contract out to SpaceX.There is also the issue that some payloads remain too big to launch on F9 and FH is a long way from first launch.
SpaceX launch rate of 25 possible just this year represents 25% of the global launches. SpaceX's market share of the global launch could reach 50% by 2020 with even the total global launches increasing to 150/yr.It's mid May already and SX have done 5 launches. SX may have a manifest of 25 but I wonder how often they've launched as many as they have manifested?
Prices are going down and will likely continue to decrease year over year. As SpaceX develops additional tech increaseing performance/decreasing costs this yearly decrease is not likely to halt. If each year has a 10% reduction then if there is no big step function this model would have a 20mt payload to orbit price of $15M by 2030. But SpaceX is planning a big step function in the mid 2020s. So in mid 2020s the Price for 20mt would be with this 10% yearly reduction model of $27M.I think we all hope so but while SX has a monopoly on even partial reusability those prices will only fall as far as they want them to.
Actually that's another 25 for the remainder of the year.This year if SpaceX actually does 25SpaceX won't launch 25 times in 2017. Why in every year SpaceX amazing peoples insist on ridiculous numbers that never happen?
This year if SpaceX actually does 25SpaceX won't launch 25 times in 2017. Why in every year SpaceX amazing peoples insist on ridiculous numbers that never happen?
.....
In principle 2 can be coped with by re-scheduling till later but that implies either
a)One of the later payloads can step into the open slot or
b)SX operates some kind of "standby" arrangement that lets customers fly sooner if a gap opens up that aren't even formally listed yet (do LV companies even do this?)
IIRC someone (Ed Kyle?) said NASA was able to keep up a high flight rate in the 60's because they had a huge number of pads (7? 14?) they could use more or less simultaneously.Take Atlas for an example. In 1966, the U.S. Air Force and NASA launched 47 Atlas missiles or space launch vehicles. 33 were orbital launches. These were performed from 12 launch pads - 5 pads at the Cape and 7 at VAFB. All of the Cape pads, and 2 of the West Coast pads, were dedicated to orbital launches. VAFB SLC 4E (previously Pt. Arguello LC 2-4) was the busiest, handling nine launches, mostly Gambit film return missions (pads tended to be assigned to specific programs back then).
So what you're argument seems to suggest is that the booster business (if separable) is "commoditizing" (to the degree anything in aerospace could become "off the shelf") as an economic trend.
And that the US/payload/"anything above booster separation" ... still retains its traditional nature, and that this "high ground" is where the competition moves to. Whoever moves fast in serving the need, controls where the market heads.
Does this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?
Does this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?
Does this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?>
Were SpaceX to achieve the vision of reliable, rapid reuse as they have envisioned with the corresponding reduction in launch expense, it seems to me that it's (in theory) possible (from an economic perspective) to bring some payloads into the market that would drive an enormous number of launches such that SpaceX could launch as often as their facilities and turnaround cadence permits.
That'll happen just launching their internet constellations, unless they go the route of tasking a mini-ITS variant to deploy them by the hundreds.
What this means is that reusability impact on supply and demand equation for the market will make the prices fall in the market because of an over abundance of supply. SpaceX will have much more supply capability than demand, increases the likelyhood of the ULA goal of launch on demand. Where boosters are sitting in a warehouse waiting for use. The booster manufacturer manages the booster build rate based on his projection of the demand not the practically custom build on contract model that is currently in use. A shortened contract to fly periiod will also force more pressure on sat builders to follow suit. To having sat busses manufactured ahead of contracts existing where a contract adds the customer specific parts over a shorter period.
I know it as the "time value of money" but yes the reduction in time scale from 1 1/2 years to maybe a 1/4 of a year, and the interest payments on that money should indeed be significant, even given the fairly low interest rate period we are in at present.
Now the effect that reusability could have in this. The major costs for a launch are the booster and those funds spent during the last few months for payload and LV processing at the site plus the payload analysis/flight profile. All SpaceX has to do is to self fund the manufacture of the Upper Stages which is less that $15M for the sell of reflights of boosters to customers such that 3 months occurs between contract and flight.
What is going on is a complete change in the way LV construction is funded and purchased. For customers they wait until their sat is almost finished they select and purchase a ride and 3 months later fly. It could save them millions in the "cost of money". For those not familiar with what the term "cost of money" means it is associated with funds from loans or investment that sits idle without any revenue because of the long time between expenditure and revenue generating operation. The longer the period the higher the associated additional costs in interest or expectations of returns on investment (ROI) from the investor. The difference between even 18 months and 3 months is significant, as much as 10% of the cost of the purchased LV flight.
Take Atlas for an example. In 1966, the U.S. Air Force and NASA launched 47 Atlas missiles or space launch vehicles. 33 were orbital launches. These were performed from 12 launch pads - 5 pads at the Cape and 7 at VAFB. All of the Cape pads, and 2 of the West Coast pads, were dedicated to orbital launches. VAFB SLC 4E (previously Pt. Arguello LC 2-4) was the busiest, handling nine launches, mostly Gambit film return missions (pads tended to be assigned to specific programs back then).Oh dear, my memory for details. :(
Although quick turnarounds are impressive, what really matters is sustainable launch pace over the long run. A pad may be able to turn around quickly for one or two launches, but it will periodically have to be taken out of service for a few weeks for more substantial maintenance. Payload issues and bad weather (hurricane season looms) can affect schedules. Then there is the Falcon Heavy launch. LC 39A will screech to a dead stop for weeks while that campaign runs its course.That's the question. Can SX keep up the pace of 1 launch every 2 weeks off the same pad over a 7 month period? I've no feel for how exhausting the process is.
The thing I have in the back of my mind if the economics (easy part) and ancillary issues (big ask) could be reconciled would drive 300 Full-Size ITS Mars-class Payloads at minimum as well as additional ongoing demand.There is nothing simple about the economics of space launch, let alone transitioning a business built on a fully expendable design to a semi reusable one. :(
If this is happening, SpaceX are managing the transition by keeping prices high for now.And working on creating their own internal demand that will take up any slack-- the satellite constellation. I have from the beginning seen that project as a hedge against any shortfall in future launch demand by the rest of the market. Of course, it has the added benefit of being possibly a larger revenue source than their primary business (assuming it all works out as they hope).
It's simple when the conjecture is premised on the ITS Architecture and Economics having been proved out. :o ;DThe thing I have in the back of my mind if the economics (easy part) and ancillary issues (big ask) could be reconciled would drive 300 Full-Size ITS Mars-class Payloads at minimum as well as additional ongoing demand.There is nothing simple about the economics of space launch, let alone transitioning a business built on a fully expendable design to a semi reusable one. :(
On a different tack about reusability effect on costs. In-space industrilization: made-In-Space believes it has come up with a significant money making in-space industrialization business case for the manufacture of ZBLAM in zero G. With low cost access to space making even the profitable business case with current space access costs the business could become even more significant. See this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40)Perhaps, but these are a dozen launches that would not take place otherwise. IOW New Business.
But the amounts and number of flights could be only a dozen a year.
Won't that all be on NASA contracts, which are well above basic prices to LEO?
But its largest impact is not on launch but on space station utilization where cost of supply and personnel transport could be reduced due to the demand for more traffic.
Initially Yes.On a different tack about reusability effect on costs. In-space industrilization: made-In-Space believes it has come up with a significant money making in-space industrialization business case for the manufacture of ZBLAM in zero G. With low cost access to space making even the profitable business case with current space access costs the business could become even more significant. See this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40)Perhaps, but these are a dozen launches that would not take place otherwise. IOW New Business.
But the amounts and number of flights could be only a dozen a year.
If we want to see $/lb to orbit go down this is the market that has to expand to a point where SX can see a revenue rise despite a price drop.Quote from: oldAtlas_EguyWon't that all be on NASA contracts, which are well above basic prices to LEO?
But its largest impact is not on launch but on space station utilization where cost of supply and personnel transport could be reduced due to the demand for more traffic.
Initially Yes.I think it says as much about the cost of putting a lb of mass in orbit.
Which says a lot about the the strength of the business case.
As their access to space costs drop so will their volume of manufacturing increase due to the lower cost of product having more terrestrial business case applications. This is not a linear expansion but a logarithmic one. such that costs drop in half volume increases by 4.I don't know it will go that well but if it makes a profit and they stay in business I hope it will be enough to encourage other companies into the business, although the most likely ones would be to compete with them, on the old Hollywood adage that "Everyone wants to be the second person to have the brilliant idea." :(
Ok.
Lets say you have a fully reusable ITS that can get to LEO for $60M.
If ZBLAM fiber finished into a cased ready to bury form for $5.00/m (100Gbit multimode) which is actually worth and can replace existing bundle of 10 fibers valued at $16/m. Now that $5/m ZBLAM *3000m/kg *50,000kg = $750M.
It can bring up 50mt of rods and take back to Earth 50mt of fiber rolls. The 50mt value is 1/4 the max of the ITS 200mt. The assumption is that landing weight on Earth is 1/4 the max payload.
I was thinking to doc it to a factory that had 100-200mt of factory equipment. Say several BA2100s. Each ITS could take up 200mt but only bring back 50mt. At least in all the information that I have seen on the system capability design. If it was upgraded to be able to land/deorbit and reenter with full 200mt then the costs decrease by a factor 4. Makeing ZBLAM finished cables about the same price as that of regular silicon cable.It can bring up 50mt of rods and take back to Earth 50mt of fiber rolls. The 50mt value is 1/4 the max of the ITS 200mt. The assumption is that landing weight on Earth is 1/4 the max payload.
Absolutely fascinating idea, however I think you'll need to subtract some amount from the landed payload mass for the factory/equipment to process the material, or would the ITS capsule dock to another orbited "factory module" of some type? Ideally the "factory" bit could launch once and stay in orbit indefinitely (needs some pretty honkin huge solar arrays too I'd assume?) to be used multiple times. A wonderful investment opportunity! :)
I've long thought that "cheap launch" is not going to be enough to bring about the revolution in the use of space. At a minimum you need down mass, ideally on a regular schedule.
Interesting discussion.Started.
Someone should start a thread on the downmass challenge.
I was thinking to doc it to a factory that had 100-200mt of factory equipment. Say several BA2100s. Each ITS could take up 200mt but only bring back 50mt. At least in all the information that I have seen on the system capability design. If it was upgraded to be able to land/deorbit and reenter with full 200mt then the costs decrease by a factor 4. Makeing ZBLAM finished cables about the same price as that of regular silicon cable.
I was thinking to doc it to a factory that had 100-200mt of factory equipment. Say several BA2100s. Each ITS could take up 200mt but only bring back 50mt. At least in all the information that I have seen on the system capability design. If it was upgraded to be able to land/deorbit and reenter with full 200mt then the costs decrease by a factor 4. Makeing ZBLAM finished cables about the same price as that of regular silicon cable.
I did a google search and I can't find any info on zblam. What does it stand for? Any links? I am sure someplace upthread the answer lies...
I was thinking to doc it to a factory that had 100-200mt of factory equipment. Say several BA2100s. Each ITS could take up 200mt but only bring back 50mt. At least in all the information that I have seen on the system capability design. If it was upgraded to be able to land/deorbit and reenter with full 200mt then the costs decrease by a factor 4. Makeing ZBLAM finished cables about the same price as that of regular silicon cable.
I did a google search and I can't find any info on zblam. What does it stand for? Any links? I am sure someplace upthread the answer lies...
Search for `zblam fibre`...
Will the medium launch vehicle proposed by RSC Energia within the framework of the R&D project Phoenix be expendable or have some reusable elements (what exactly will be reusable)? Is it going to have, like the Zenit launch vehicle, an automatic prelaunch processing system unique to Soviet/Russian launch vehicles? What are the facilities where this rocket is going to be assembled? What will be the differences between the versions of this rocket for different launch sites - Vostochny, Baiterek and Sea Launch?
The launch vehicle will be expendable, at least in the initial phase. The architecture of the suite of automated systems for controlling the prelaunch processing and launch will be similar to what was used for Zenit. The launch vehicle is going to be assembled at Progress plant in Samara. The launch vehicles are to be the same for all launch sites.
The reusability of rocket stages needs to be additionally justified. To assure precise landing and subsequent re-use of the first stage, you need to install special controls, including rocket thrusters, onboard computers, a navigation system, and expend additional propellant. As a result, the savings here are minimal, or none at all. We believe that what we need to strive for is reducing impact areas for jettisonable elements by converging them towards a single point. The expenditures here are low, and the gain is obvious. It’s unrealistic to think of re-using the second stage, which returns to Earth with a velocity that is close to the orbital velocity. Without a proper thermal shield capable of withstanding the heat of up to 3000 degrees Centigrade, the only pieces that will reach the ground will be thick metal frames.
Here's an official Russian view of reusability's effect on costs...QuoteWill the medium launch vehicle proposed by RSC Energia within the framework of the R&D project Phoenix be expendable or have some reusable elements (what exactly will be reusable)? Is it going to have, like the Zenit launch vehicle, an automatic prelaunch processing system unique to Soviet/Russian launch vehicles? What are the facilities where this rocket is going to be assembled? What will be the differences between the versions of this rocket for different launch sites - Vostochny, Baiterek and Sea Launch?
The launch vehicle will be expendable, at least in the initial phase. The architecture of the suite of automated systems for controlling the prelaunch processing and launch will be similar to what was used for Zenit. The launch vehicle is going to be assembled at Progress plant in Samara. The launch vehicles are to be the same for all launch sites.
The reusability of rocket stages needs to be additionally justified. To assure precise landing and subsequent re-use of the first stage, you need to install special controls, including rocket thrusters, onboard computers, a navigation system, and expend additional propellant. As a result, the savings here are minimal, or none at all. We believe that what we need to strive for is reducing impact areas for jettisonable elements by converging them towards a single point. The expenditures here are low, and the gain is obvious. It’s unrealistic to think of re-using the second stage, which returns to Earth with a velocity that is close to the orbital velocity. Without a proper thermal shield capable of withstanding the heat of up to 3000 degrees Centigrade, the only pieces that will reach the ground will be thick metal frames.
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2017/news_05-02_1.html
BO engineers are no fool. They saw that the SpaceX many engines paradigm worked using center to hover slam and came up with their own version of 7 BE-4's which should be able to deep throttle making it possible to do a similar landing profile with 7 large engines vs 9 on an even larger tank/rocket. Someone else may come up with something else but the die may be cast for some time in the 1st stage reusability designs for the next few decades.They had already been doing clustered engine VTVL tests by the time Grasshopper was announced. Blue Origin had basically the right idea about VTVL /before/ SpaceX did, it's just that Blue Origin messed around for a long time while SpaceX was actually building a business and doing useful stuff.
They had already been doing clustered engine VTVL tests by the time Grasshopper was announced. Blue Origin had basically the right idea about VTVL /before/ SpaceX did, it's just that Blue Origin messed around for a long time while SpaceX was actually building a business and doing useful stuff.
Not really. It was Masten's success that did it. Guys "in a garage" doing it convinced Elon that SpaceX could do it.Quote from: robotbeatThey had already been doing clustered engine VTVL tests by the time Grasshopper was announced. Blue Origin had basically the right idea about VTVL /before/ SpaceX did, it's just that Blue Origin messed around for a long time while SpaceX was actually building a business and doing useful stuff.
Correct on all points.
Does anyone know if Blue's success with VTVL was one reason SpaceX decided to pursue it?
Not really. It was Masten's success that did it. Guys "in a garage" doing it convinced Elon that SpaceX could do it.Quote from: robotbeatThey had already been doing clustered engine VTVL tests by the time Grasshopper was announced. Blue Origin had basically the right idea about VTVL /before/ SpaceX did, it's just that Blue Origin messed around for a long time while SpaceX was actually building a business and doing useful stuff.
Correct on all points.
Does anyone know if Blue's success with VTVL was one reason SpaceX decided to pursue it?
But it could've contributed, I suppose.
We need to recognize that SpaceX stumbled on to its current re-usability system. That system is possible because Merlin-1 is a small engine by EELV-class rocket standards. So SpaceX had to use nine of them on the Falcon-9 first stage. After planning to recover the first stage with parachutes, and failing, SpaceX shifted plans and adapted Falcon-9's engine layout (and much else) to allow retro-rocket landings using a central M1D. Mind you, even those landings are hover-slams.
Is there any other EELV-class rocket in the world that can be adapted this way? Atlas V can't. Arianne-5 can't. Delta-IV can't. None of the Russian rockets can. None of the Chinese can. No one else was so "idiotic" to build a big launcher with lots of weak engines.
So we can't assume it is easy to catch up with SpaceX. Or that ULA is dumb for pursuing a different re-use strategy. They don't have any easy path to reuse.
For any other company, reuse requires a clean-sheet rocket and probably a new engine. Blue Origin will get reuse by making their New Glenn super-huge, while using the big BE-4. Other companies would need a complete re-work, too.
Nice find! So not only is this a new launch contract, but it will also be on a flight-proven booster.These seem to say there is a contract for SpaceX to launch Telkom 4 around June 2018 (although I can never be completely sure with Google Translate).https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4 (https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/)
http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/12/30/ssl-to-provide-next-satellite-for-telkom-indonesia/
President Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga mentioned to CNN, “Investment in Telkom-4 [satellite] will be cheaper as we use a reusable orbital rocket from SpaceX, so it will be cheaper as much as 40 percent.”
Cross-posting:Nice find! So not only is this a new launch contract, but it will also be on a flight-proven booster.These seem to say there is a contract for SpaceX to launch Telkom 4 around June 2018 (although I can never be completely sure with Google Translate).https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4 (https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/)
http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/12/30/ssl-to-provide-next-satellite-for-telkom-indonesia/QuotePresident Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga mentioned to CNN, “Investment in Telkom-4 [satellite] will be cheaper as we use a reusable orbital rocket from SpaceX, so it will be cheaper as much as 40 percent.”
Cross-posting:Nice find! So not only is this a new launch contract, but it will also be on a flight-proven booster.These seem to say there is a contract for SpaceX to launch Telkom 4 around June 2018 (although I can never be completely sure with Google Translate).https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4 (https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/)
http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/12/30/ssl-to-provide-next-satellite-for-telkom-indonesia/QuotePresident Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga mentioned to CNN, “Investment in Telkom-4 [satellite] will be cheaper as we use a reusable orbital rocket from SpaceX, so it will be cheaper as much as 40 percent.”
So, when they say "total investment", does that include the cost of launching the satellite as well? Assuming that it does , and that they pay around $40M for the flight, that would mean that the cost of insurance would be around 9% of the cost of the payload, assuming that the ~116M left (126-10) is the cost of the satellite. Does that not seem a bit high?
The Atlas D,E,F,G, and H all used pressure fed vernier engines for steering. They put out a few thousand pounds total per rocket. The Atlas stage without booster engines and only sustainer engine weighed just 5,174 lb (2,347 kg) dry. Use of vernier engines was the engineering method for controlling the rocket in the late 1950's early 1960's. Later in early 1960's stronger and faster systems for steering a main engine was developed and became the standard engineering method. These old designs though continued to fly into the 1990's for the US and are still flying for Russia.That's an interesting piece of rocket history. I think the joker in the pack though would have been that AFAIK until SX no one seemed to realize you needed aerosurfaces on the top end to give adequate control. I'm not sure a human operator would have had good enough reaction times to handle the task. OTOH I suspect had it been attempted the engineers of the time would have gone with a hybrid solution of on board analog control loops for the fast response phenomena and left the operator (pilot?) for the gross guidance changes.
The Atlas vernier engines produced 2,000lbs thrust each. And had the option for its own small shared turbo pump for independent operation after SECO (sustainer engine shutdown).
A modified Atlas design with 4 verniers landing legs and some areosurface controls could have in the 1960's done a VTVL. BTW it was radio controlled steering and used an onboard analog computer for rate stabilization. So it could have been done then. But the engines would not have been reusable only the tank. The tank was the cheapest part of the vehicle.
Any whispering about when SpaceX will be flying a booster for the 3rd or more time?
(I know they have a few waiting for 2nd flight but I got to wondering about multiple reuse time frame.)
No Human operator. It was a big computer sitting on the ground. Something that was way to heavy for a rocket to lift but was fast enough to do high accuracy navigation steering and engine cutoff timing. It could have been sufficient for a computer controlled landing on a landing pad. This accuracy was why it was still in use up to the 1990's.The Atlas D,E,F,G, and H all used pressure fed vernier engines for steering. They put out a few thousand pounds total per rocket. The Atlas stage without booster engines and only sustainer engine weighed just 5,174 lb (2,347 kg) dry. Use of vernier engines was the engineering method for controlling the rocket in the late 1950's early 1960's. Later in early 1960's stronger and faster systems for steering a main engine was developed and became the standard engineering method. These old designs though continued to fly into the 1990's for the US and are still flying for Russia.That's an interesting piece of rocket history. I think the joker in the pack though would have been that AFAIK until SX no one seemed to realize you needed aerosurfaces on the top end to give adequate control. I'm not sure a human operator would have had good enough reaction times to handle the task. OTOH I suspect had it been attempted the engineers of the time would have gone with a hybrid solution of on board analog control loops for the fast response phenomena and left the operator (pilot?) for the gross guidance changes.
The Atlas vernier engines produced 2,000lbs thrust each. And had the option for its own small shared turbo pump for independent operation after SECO (sustainer engine shutdown).
A modified Atlas design with 4 verniers landing legs and some areosurface controls could have in the 1960's done a VTVL. BTW it was radio controlled steering and used an onboard analog computer for rate stabilization. So it could have been done then. But the engines would not have been reusable only the tank. The tank was the cheapest part of the vehicle.
I expect the first half a dozen reflights will be boosters flown once on a LEO mission. No third flights. Perhaps one reflight of a GTO launch that had the most margins and could do a little longer re-entry burn.Any whispering about when SpaceX will be flying a booster for the 3rd or more time?
(I know they have a few waiting for 2nd flight but I got to wondering about multiple reuse time frame.)
Not as far as I've seen. Currently they would likely still need several months for refurbishing and checking a core, so the earliest we could see a third flight would probably be Q4 2017 if SpaceX decide to fly the Iridium-1/BulgariaSat-1 booster for a third time.
Any whispering about when SpaceX will be flying a booster for the 3rd or more time?
(I know they have a few waiting for 2nd flight but I got to wondering about multiple reuse time frame.)
Not as far as I've seen. Currently they would likely still need several months for refurbishing and checking a core, so the earliest we could see a third flight would probably be Q4 2017 if SpaceX decide to fly the Iridium-1/BulgariaSat-1 booster for a third time.
Well, two out of two reused boosters have taken several months to refurbish so far. And I'd imagine that SpaceX is going to reduce those times gradually, not suddenly.Any whispering about when SpaceX will be flying a booster for the 3rd or more time?
(I know they have a few waiting for 2nd flight but I got to wondering about multiple reuse time frame.)
Not as far as I've seen. Currently they would likely still need several months for refurbishing and checking a core, so the earliest we could see a third flight would probably be Q4 2017 if SpaceX decide to fly the Iridium-1/BulgariaSat-1 booster for a third time.
Dubious that they will " likely still need several months" as they have said they are already reducing cycle times.
Any whispering about when SpaceX will be flying a booster for the 3rd or more time?
(I know they have a few waiting for 2nd flight but I got to wondering about multiple reuse time frame.)
Not as far as I've seen. Currently they would likely still need several months for refurbishing and checking a core, so the earliest we could see a third flight would probably be Q4 2017 if SpaceX decide to fly the Iridium-1/BulgariaSat-1 booster for a third time.
Dubious that they will " likely still need several months" as they have said they are already reducing cycle times.
So how to decide when to stop using pre-Block 5 cores that are still available?
So how to decide when to stop using pre-Block 5 cores that are still available?
Block 5 is one day refurbishment, at least once they get into the rythm. Pre-block 5 maybe 2 weeks. I think they will stop using them immediately.
If there are major components unchanged, like the tanks and thrust structure they still can strip them down and make them new block 5. It seems the COPV are new already so they can reuse those, too.
Well, two out of two reused boosters have taken several months to refurbish so far. And I'd imagine that SpaceX is going to reduce those times gradually, not suddenly.
So how to decide when to stop using pre-Block 5 cores that are still available?
Block 5 is one day refurbishment, at least once they get into the rythm. Pre-block 5 maybe 2 weeks. I think they will stop using them immediately.
If there are major components unchanged, like the tanks and thrust structure they still can strip them down and make them new block 5. It seems the COPV are new already so they can reuse those, too.
Well, two out of two reused boosters have taken several months to refurbish so far. And I'd imagine that SpaceX is going to reduce those times gradually, not suddenly.
Don't confuse time to re-fly with time to refurbish. The booster can't re-fly until there's a customer willing to re-use.
Block 3/4 boosters sound like candidates for expendable launches. The marginal cost of a couple of weeks refurbishment of a single core would very low, even if they have been written off for regular relaunches. Of course block 5 FH refurbishment costs would presumably be even lower, but using an expendable block 3/4 core would save one flight's portion of lifetime on three FH cores.
Block 3/4 boosters sound like candidates for expendable launches. The marginal cost of a couple of weeks refurbishment of a single core would very low, even if they have been written off for regular relaunches. Of course block 5 FH refurbishment costs would presumably be even lower, but using an expendable block 3/4 core would save one flight's portion of lifetime on three FH cores.
I see your argument about expendable flights. But those will not be many.
Assume only 10 block 5 cores built before reuse becomes standard. Assume only 10 reflights per core. Assume there will still be a few customers like NASA and DoD who want new cores for a while. They will soon have 20 cores worth 200 flights. That is enough to last them well into beginning to launch the constellation in 2019.
There is always the possibility that the 100 flight target proves optimistic. Look, even 10 reflights mean a revolution in the cost of access to space, so that would not be a disaster. But I can see a scenario where cores get reflown 10 times, or maybe 20 o 30 times, rather than 100 times.
This is someting I've been pondering on. Specifically, the difficult decision of when to stop reusing Block 3 and 4 boosters because Block 5 is available. On the one hand, just throwing away a perfectly reusable booster seems a waste of tens of millions of dollars. On the other hand, they cost more and take longer to refurbish than the Block 5 with its optimized reusability features.Remanufacture those into FH side boosters. Its been done already. At the factory they should be able to fully upgrade to the latest specs being produced.
So come next year, they will have a dozen or so Block 5's in operation, but also have maybe a dozen or more Block 3 and 4 landed cores still sitting in storage, some of which have been reflown once, and some which haven't been reflown at all.
So how to decide when to stop using pre-Block 5 cores that are still available?
No Human operator. It was a big computer sitting on the ground. Something that was way to heavy for a rocket to lift but was fast enough to do high accuracy navigation steering and engine cutoff timing. It could have been sufficient for a computer controlled landing on a landing pad. This accuracy was why it was still in use up to the 1990's.That's odd. I thought the only ICBM system that used a guidance computer based on the ground was the Titan 1,after which digital IC's meant you could build them small enough to put on board.
The ICBM version was designed such that the X band tracker up-link would capture the Atlas in-flight during the sustainer phase and issue SECO that would then result in the warhead hitting the specified target. The Atlas's were launched at ~1min intervals to be able to give the shared guidance station the ability to acquire and guide each of several missiles.Odd I though the RL10 had gone to some kind of augmented spark ignitor, but that's more recently. IIRC the J2-S went to a cartridge start system from the (complex) tank head start tanks. I didn't think it was ever deployed. IIRC they had gone further and worked out how to spin up the turbines without starter cartridges, leading to unlimited starts.
The main reason that Atlas was not made into a reusable LV was that it was a throw away weapon system. That after they were launch there was no reason to recover and use then again. Possibly even the probable no facilities left standing either.
One of the first engines the F-1 was so good that it could have been reused. Also the RL-10 was so good as well that it could have done a dozen restarts in-space if they could figure out how to get a dozen restart cartridges on the engine. The RL-10 actually has 4 cartridge start ports for use and has been used for 4 in-space starts. So there were engines in the mid to late 1960's that could have been used to create fully reusable LV's. In fact they were almost used on shuttle. But because development funding was limited the cost of operations was sacrificed for lower development costs.
Added:
Now back from history to the effect of reusability on costs. Reusability has been the goal since the 1960's but has been only partially successful if even that until now. SpaceX tells us that their solution will lower their costs and has offered customers a lower price for use of used boosters. But only once their use of used booster exceeds that of new ones can it be said that their reusability solution has become successful.
The Atlas D,E,F,G, and H all used pressure fed vernier engines for steering. ,,,
The Atlas vernier engines produced 2,000lbs thrust each. And had the option for its own small shared turbo pump for independent operation after SECO (sustainer engine shutdown).
A modified Atlas design with 4 verniers landing legs and some areosurface controls could have in the 1960's done a VTVL. ...
The following post on the Bulgariasat Update thread implies great reduction in cost of refurbishment.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42913.msg1681755#msg1681755 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42913.msg1681755#msg1681755)
This is that between these two that the refurbishment costs reduced by ~factor of 4. If the SES-10 refurbishment cost 50% that of a new booster, the Bulgariasat-1 cost ~12% that of a new booster. Even if a new booster cost $30M (this is actually the highest estimate for what a new booster cost to manufacture) then the refurbishment cost is <$4M. If the cost of a new booster is $20M (this is the low end for the estimated cost to manufacture) then the refurbishment cost would be <$3M. This puts the savings of at least $17M up to as much as $26M for this launch.
Even if the reduction factor is only ~3 then the savings become from $16M to $25M. Only a variation of $1M from the higher reduction factor.
Don't confuse elapsed time with effort required.... that 4 months go by between flight and reflight doesn't imply that there was 4 months of continuous effort. (much less if it was one person or a standing army of 1000... )
When we see SpaceX say "we can't reuse on this flight, we don't have a booster ready" then we'd know that they don't have effort down low yet....
Don't confuse elapsed time with effort required.... that 4 months go by between flight and reflight doesn't imply that there was 4 months of continuous effort. (much less if it was one person or a standing army of 1000... )
When we see SpaceX say "we can't reuse on this flight, we don't have a booster ready" then we'd know that they don't have effort down low yet....
I guess I didn't think of it that way. Although, I'm assuming that similarly with airplanes, they technically "lose" (not really) money by having the core on a hangar and not helping to deliver a payload into orbit, which is what I was thinking about. So at this point, they could have greatly reduced how much it costs to refurbish a core because it takes less effort do so presumably, and now they're going to aim to maximise the revenue that they get from each core. This will done by reducing the turn around time by making refurbishment quick and cheap (or eliminating it altogether), and by ensuring the core has high durability.
Cue in block V...
Don't confuse elapsed time with effort required.... that 4 months go by between flight and reflight doesn't imply that there was 4 months of continuous effort. (much less if it was one person or a standing army of 1000... )
When we see SpaceX say "we can't reuse on this flight, we don't have a booster ready" then we'd know that they don't have effort down low yet....
I guess I didn't think of it that way. Although, I'm assuming that similarly with airplanes, they technically "lose" (not really) money by having the core on a hangar and not helping to deliver a payload into orbit, which is what I was thinking about. So at this point, they could have greatly reduced how much it costs to refurbish a core because it takes less effort do so presumably, and now they're going to aim to maximise the revenue that they get from each core. This will done by reducing the turn around time by making refurbishment quick and cheap (or eliminating it altogether), and by ensuring the core has high durability.
Cue in block V...
Airplanes are built and operated assuming they will spend more time flying and earning money than on the ground.
Rockets are (until now) built and operated assuming they will be used once and that's it. You can't use the same financial model for both and expect sensible results.
Launch cadence.
One of the biggest impacts to per launch costs is the crew at the launch site. If there is not a launch they do not have much work to do. Their time (from the standpoint of the company) is being wasted. Also for a flow not everyone is involved with every step of the process. So unless there is an assembly line setup to LV processing at the launch site, again wasted manpower. If SpaceX with 2 pads can launch a little less than every 2 weeks, they can share personnel between pads too as long as the launches are staggered (about one a week) between the two pads. So at a rate of 1 a week (once every 2 weeks per pad) SpaceX would be spending almost the same in labor as they would be to launch off of 1 pad every 2 weeks.
But this higher cadence and assembly line like launch processing is a result of rapid reusability. If spaceX can get there. There will be several costs savings in various other places than just in refurbishment costs. Generally the cost of launch (even for a new booster) will decrease because of higher cadence.
Now as far as my estimates on the relative costs of refurbish ment between SES-10 and Bugariasat-1 is that SpaceX stated the cost of refurbishment for the SES-10 booster was 50% that of a new booster. The next item is statements that refurbishment on later vehicles would be 1/8 the the cost of the SES-10. What I was showing is that it seems that Bulgarisat-1 shows that SpaceX has yet to reach that 1/8 the cost of SES-10. But as Lar states we do not know if they are simply counting time (a mixture of storage and active work) or the work of a certain size crew or crews for a period.
But the costs have gone down. The exact amount is not known but even just cutting the costs in half from that of SES-10 is significant ($5M or more in additional savings).
Airplanes are built and operated assuming they will spend more time flying and earning money than on the ground.
Rockets are (until now) built and operated assuming they will be used once and that's it. You can't use the same financial model for both and expect sensible results.
So they're getting a better bang for their buck by effectively increasing productivity. Would they move the work force responsible for manufacturing new first stages to other projects to keep costs low and productivity high? Like you said, it is in their best interests to keep the crew busy and not have them standing around and doing nothing.
Obviously they would. First thing they'll be doing? Making more second stages than 1:1 with first stages. They already have made at least one more, presumably, and are about to have made 2 more (discounting test articles)
Yes at 50+ launches total per year multiple savings from multiple sources show up reducing cost per flight still more than those just directly related to reusability. Indirect cost savings because reusability has made it easier and cheaper for customers to "Fly SpaceX" may result in as much as another 10% or more cost reduction (up to another $5M in cost savings). This could eventually lead to in the early 2020's a price for a F9 flight of $30M. Reusibility savings: $20M for the booster + $5M for the faring+ $5M for increased economies of scale because of higher flight rate = $30M price reduction possibility.Airplanes are built and operated assuming they will spend more time flying and earning money than on the ground.
Rockets are (until now) built and operated assuming they will be used once and that's it. You can't use the same financial model for both and expect sensible results.
Yep.
... not yet.... maybe not ever. BUT... Get the cadence to once every week across two pads and you're definitely moving in that direction. It is a baby step but it's moving from custom to scheduled/assembly line... And then (as long as the payloads are there[1]) you can keep driving process improvements. SpaceX is all about those. Contrast the time for the first ASDS unload-trip to hangar to the time for the latest.So they're getting a better bang for their buck by effectively increasing productivity. Would they move the work force responsible for manufacturing new first stages to other projects to keep costs low and productivity high? Like you said, it is in their best interests to keep the crew busy and not have them standing around and doing nothing.
Obviously they would. First thing they'll be doing? Making more second stages than 1:1 with first stages. They already have made at least one more, presumably, and are about to have made 2 more (discounting test articles)
1 - CommsX makes sure they will be. Talk about eating your own dogfood...
Airplanes are built and operated assuming they will spend more time flying and earning money than on the ground.
Rockets are (until now) built and operated assuming they will be used once and that's it. You can't use the same financial model for both and expect sensible results.
Yep.
... not yet.... maybe not ever. BUT... Get the cadence to once every week across two pads and you're definitely moving in that direction. It is a baby step but it's moving from custom to scheduled/assembly line... And then (as long as the payloads are there[1]) you can keep driving process improvements. SpaceX is all about those. Contrast the time for the first ASDS unload-trip to hangar to the time for the latest.So they're getting a better bang for their buck by effectively increasing productivity. Would they move the work force responsible for manufacturing new first stages to other projects to keep costs low and productivity high? Like you said, it is in their best interests to keep the crew busy and not have them standing around and doing nothing.
Obviously they would. First thing they'll be doing? Making more second stages than 1:1 with first stages. They already have made at least one more, presumably, and are about to have made 2 more (discounting test articles)
1 - CommsX makes sure they will be. Talk about eating your own dogfood...
Boeing has just entered the reusability circle with its DARPA spaceplane that is to be a rapid "gas and go" 24 hr turnaround.
If they are successful it would push the envelope in the direction of aircraft like operations for space launch.
As well if SpaceX is successful then there would be two "gas and go" reusable LV systems in operation.
That is the real speculative question.Boeing has just entered the reusability circle with its DARPA spaceplane that is to be a rapid "gas and go" 24 hr turnaround.
If they are successful it would push the envelope in the direction of aircraft like operations for space launch.
As well if SpaceX is successful then there would be two "gas and go" reusable LV systems in operation.
If it were to work just as intended, could it be scaled up so that it could deliver a similar payload to LEO compared to Falcon 9, at a similar price point? We could see some serious competition if that is the case.
This has made the easy analysis of how your vehicle stacks up with others no longer usable. A greater in depth economic analysis now must be done by the teams during the preliminary design phase to determine if the end product when fielded will be able to compete.This is tough-to-impossible to do reliably. Boeing and Airbus, with all the incentive in the world, find it very hard to predict how a proposed product will fare in five years, in the market and competitive landscape that will exist at that time. And that's with just one serious competitor, relatively stable technology, and a fairly well understood market.
You hit the main item on the head.This has made the easy analysis of how your vehicle stacks up with others no longer usable. A greater in depth economic analysis now must be done by the teams during the preliminary design phase to determine if the end product when fielded will be able to compete.This is tough-to-impossible to do reliably. Boeing and Airbus, with all the incentive in the world, find it very hard to predict how a proposed product will fare in five years, in the market and competitive landscape that will exist at that time. And that's with just one serious competitor, relatively stable technology, and a fairly well understood market.
So the teams will try for "an in-depth economic analysis", but I think the true strategy will be to pick a design that gets in the ballpark and plays to your strengths, then make it as cheap as possible.
With all the discussion about the Block 5 upgrades to the F9, aren't you looking at the wrong rocket? Tom Mueller was pretty clear in the interview: "But we want like a hundred or more reduction in costs; and that’s what the Mars rocket’s gonna do. That’s going to be the revolutionary rocket."All of this discussion has so far been mainly about a rocket that is already flying and being recovered/reused. ITS/BFR is still so notional that we have no basis for solid discussion beyond just what Elon and Tom have talked about for their aspirations for that system/vehicle. Until we start seeing how well they are meeting those goals, IMO it's too early to try for any analysis. While a weaker form of the same argument might be made about Block 5, at least we have solid data about the relative costs of production/use/recovery/reuse for that vehicle.
Looking at the Mars presentation we get less than 5 million dollars per launch for a payload of up to 380 metric tonnes. A BFR launch will be cheaper than an Electron launch and carry more than 1000x the mass.
All of this discussion has so far been mainly about a rocket that is already flying and being recovered/reused. ITS/BFR is still so notional that we have no basis for solid discussion beyond just what Elon and Tom have talked about for their aspirations for that system/vehicle. Until we start seeing how well they are meeting those goals, IMO it's too early to try for any analysis. While a weaker form of the same argument might be made about Block 5, at least we have solid data about the relative costs of production/use/recovery/reuse for that vehicle.
All of this discussion has so far been mainly about a rocket that is already flying and being recovered/reused. ITS/BFR is still so notional that we have no basis for solid discussion beyond just what Elon and Tom have talked about for their aspirations for that system/vehicle. Until we start seeing how well they are meeting those goals, IMO it's too early to try for any analysis. While a weaker form of the same argument might be made about Block 5, at least we have solid data about the relative costs of production/use/recovery/reuse for that vehicle.
That's true. I just found it remarkable that in just a few years (if all goes right) one could order a BFR launch for maybe 1% of the current launch cost per mass. Even if SpaceX misses the target by an oder of magnitude, the savings would be dramatic.
The snowball of of rapid reusability has started to roll and it has even started to get bigger and roll faster.That's what I was getting at when I compared the (probably optimistic) cost estimates for BFR with a payload of up to 380 tonnes (5 million dollars per launch) with the launch price for Electron (5 million dollars, too) for just 225 kilograms.
Those (new medium/heavy LV designers) that don't plan for it will get crushed by it. At the moment small payloads LVs in the ~100kg size are excluded but as the medium prices drop they could be in competition on a per flight price with LVs that do 10X the payload size. So even that market is not isolated from the effect in the end. The end being somewhere around early 2020. So the smallsat launcher market has only a few more years (<6) before rapid reusibility could obliterate it.
The snowball of of rapid reusability has started to roll and it has even started to get bigger and roll faster.That's what I was getting at when I compared the (probably optimistic) cost estimates for BFR with a payload of up to 380 tonnes (5 million dollars per launch) with the launch price for Electron (5 million dollars, too) for just 225 kilograms.
Those (new medium/heavy LV designers) that don't plan for it will get crushed by it. At the moment small payloads LVs in the ~100kg size are excluded but as the medium prices drop they could be in competition on a per flight price with LVs that do 10X the payload size. So even that market is not isolated from the effect in the end. The end being somewhere around early 2020. So the smallsat launcher market has only a few more years (<6) before rapid reusibility could obliterate it.
That's what I was getting at when I compared the (probably optimistic) cost estimates for BFR with a payload of up to 380 tonnes (5 million dollars per launch) with the launch price for Electron (5 million dollars, too) for just 225 kilograms.
That's what I was getting at when I compared the (probably optimistic) cost estimates for BFR with a payload of up to 380 tonnes (5 million dollars per launch) with the launch price for Electron (5 million dollars, too) for just 225 kilograms.
I am convinced your optimism is warranted for the following reason and it leads me to another conclusion about reusability costs:
With the performance SpaceX has demonstrated at this point as described (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41560.msg1679711#msg1679711)d by Ed Kyle after Inmarsat and with remaining performance improvements to come, I'm convinced of Musk's ability to deliver preformance beyond early projections while maintaining costs and meeting goals. The response to and comeback from the RUDs has been very impressive. I think enough has been proven that SpaceX is relatively insulated now from normal RUDs and only exposed to some Black Swan that takes them out. While space is hard no doubt, I'm not sure what technical impediment might prevent them from reaching their goals including eventually continuous operations.
So not sure if $5M is exactly right but that's besides the point. I think they'll achieve gas-n-go (or close enough to it) cost.
When that happens it opens up a vast spectrum of otherwise impossible business opportunity in the $T's of revenue.
The trillions of revenue won't be on the launch side but the telecomms side. That much is already well established.The rocket equation makes this uneconomical. Please do the actual math to understand.
There's one possible exception: high hypersonic (i.e. Near orbital) point to point travel. Likely to be held back by safety and other practical considerations, however it COULD have sufficient volume globally.
A full ITS optimized for point to point transport could send thousands of people per flight. You'd want a smaller vehicle, like something the size of the spaceship, for just A380 sized. Then the costs are similar. Full ITS is $3 million per launch (tanker flights) including propellant and amortization and fees. So a BFS sized vehicle would be about half a million, similar to an A380. Musk sees it as possible, though not necessarily likely.I misspoke, I should have said the ISP of raptor isn't high enough. The ISP of rocket engines carrying their own LOX onboard that is the problem.
The rocket equation doesn't actually preclude it.
The trillions of revenue won't be on the launch side but the telecomms side. That much is already well established. And this is why SpaceX is building a Megaconstellation rather than just focusing on launch.
...
...
Here's perhaps the other reason an air breathing hypersonic rocket plane would make much more sense, since it avoids the thermal inferno of re-entry.
So not sure if $5M is exactly right but that's besides the point. I think they'll achieve gas-n-go (or close enough to it) cost. When that happens it opens up a vast spectrum of otherwise impossible business opportunity in the $T's of revenue.
Let's say price is $10M for that payload. To get $T's of revenue (say $2T in a year?), it would take 200,000 launches -- one every other minute or so, 24-7, 365 days per year. At 380t/launch, that's 76,000,000 tonnes of something into LEO. Annually. About 10x what FedX and UPS combined haul by ground and air in the US. (Also about 380,000x what is currently launched annually in the World.)
You are proposing one big mess in LEO...
Wait, who says ITS is ten years away? SpaceX's timeline shows orbital testing in 2020. This should be feasible if SpaceX descopes ITS slightly so it can actually launch from LC39a.Their intention is to upgrade LC39A to be able to launch the full sized BFR/ITS.
With the upcoming reuse of a Dragon, what are the implications of this reuse for lowering costs of such services?To my mind, Dragon 2 reuse isn't so much about direct cost savings but about new potential mission options. Red Dragons, Lunar Flybys, etc. are all pretty much dependent on reused Dragon 2 capsules right now. They could do those without reuse, but it would significantly stretch out their timeline or necessitate a higher production rate on D2 capsules. So, in order to make such mission affordable either in terms of production costs or mission opportunity costs (i.e. lose out on using the capsule to fulfill a NASA mission, either CRS2 or Commercial Crew) it's going to require reuse and re-purposing of prior flown capsules. Initially, most likely cargo D2s that are landed on dry land until NASA gets on board with land-landing crewed capsules. Or, it will go the other way. Reuse of CRS2 cargo D2 capsules will allow bespoke capsules to be built for other mission profiles.
The SpaceX statements sound similar to those about the booster used on SES-10. This would indicate the used Dragon probably cost >=50% as much as a new one. That would put savings on this ~$50-60M cost for Dragon of up to $30M.
If that is the best possible for Dragon even D2 then a Dragon flight on a used booster could have a cost (not price) of just $60M. This could lead to a price for D2 flights using a used D2 and used booster at a price of almost half that of current.
But it also is a pathfinder and like SES-10 booster will be recovered and be able to be studied to see the difference between one use and two uses which will inform just haw much of a usable life these vehicles actually have.
The remaining item not covered is just how much of that $50-60M cost of a new Dragon does the trunk cost?
Rocket engines carrying their own oxygen isn't really that much of a problem. Air breathers have to do the same thing essentially by accelerating oxygen AND nitrogen up to their flight speed before they can burn it for thrust. The total amount of mass accelerated to flight speed (including that nitrogen mass) is actually GREATER for an air breather for an around the world flight.
New article attempting to analyse reusability savings, with a particular focus on how long it might take SpaceX to recoup their investment so far in re-use:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spacex-reusable-rocket-launch-costs-profits-2017-6 (http://uk.businessinsider.com/spacex-reusable-rocket-launch-costs-profits-2017-6)
Their model is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TgkiKHRNll3XhhYCZnmbJpL941cxGd5isMHIFFIpaG0/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TgkiKHRNll3XhhYCZnmbJpL941cxGd5isMHIFFIpaG0/edit?usp=sharing)
Europe Sets Sights on Cheap Rocket Engine by 2030s
PARIS (Reuters) - Europe aims to develop a low-cost, reusable rocket engine for use after 2030 under a deal between Airbus Safran Launchers and the European Space Agency (ESA).
They signed a development contract at the Paris Airshow on Thursday to develop a demonstrator engine, powered by liquid oxygen and methane.
Airbus Safran said it would use new manufacturing techniques, including the use of 3D printers, to keep the engine's cost down to around 1 million euros ($1.1 million).
"The commercial market - at least the European one - is asking for reliability, on-time delivery and cost, and we have to find the best way to answer these market expectations," its CEO, Alain Charmeau, told Reuters.
The firm, a joint venture between Airbus and Safran that will become ArianeGroup on July 1, currently powers the rockets it uses to launch satellites for commercial clients with Vulcain 2 engines costing around 10 million euros each.
"We need, and will have Ariane 6 in 2020, but we also have to prepare for the future ...and that is why this (Prometheus) program is important," he said.
The jury was still out on the issue of reusability, however.
California-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) earlier this year achieved what it called "a huge revolution in spaceflight" by reusing part of one of its Falcon 9 rocket on a subsequent launch.
Charmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."
Sounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.
Sounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.
Two years ago, they were referring to reusable rockets as fantasy, and four years ago, they were planning on expensive upgrades of Ariane 5. Now it's Ariane 6 and low cost methlox engines, with reuse on the horizon. They've come long, long way.
QuoteCharmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."
The market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."
Okay, then the statement is disingenuous. Might as well say that the market isn't asking for any kind of rocket, as the customer just wants their payload in orbit.The market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."
Reusability is the solution to the demand, one of potentially many solutions. So the statement is quite correct.
Okay, then the statement is disingenuous. Might as well say that the market isn't asking for any kind of rocket, as the customer just wants their payload in orbit.The market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."
Reusability is the solution to the demand, one of potentially many solutions. So the statement is quite correct.
As written crosspost from the discussion topic.bold mineToday at the ESA pavilion at the Paris Airshow, there was a live roundtable discussion about the fixed institutional procurement of launches from Arianespace. Link to video (http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2017/06/Round_table_on_the_role_of_European_institutions_in_the_exploitation_of_Ariane_6_and_Vega-C)
The participents were representatives of: the EU, ESA, France, Germany & Italy, EUMETSAT and Arianespace.
Discussions belong in the discussion threat.
Sounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.
Two years ago, they were referring to reusable rockets as fantasy, and four years ago, they were planning on expensive upgrades of Ariane 5. Now it's Ariane 6 and low cost methlox engines, with reuse on the horizon. They've come long, long way.
But they have a very long way to go still... Ariane 6 could be already be outdated by its first flight.
Where I think a lot of these estimates may miss the boat is in the high gross profit margin they assume SpaceX is currently achieving - prior to reuse. Generally, in the articles I have read on this topic, the 40% gross margin is traced back to a single source estimate, done some time ago to estimate SpaceX's value should they announce an IPO.
Where I think a lot of these estimates may miss the boat is in the high gross profit margin they assume SpaceX is currently achieving - prior to reuse. Generally, in the articles I have read on this topic, the 40% gross margin is traced back to a single source estimate, done some time ago to estimate SpaceX's value should they announce an IPO.
To be clear for everyone in case it is not generally known, gross margins are before R&D costs (and sales/general/admin costs) are accounted. It's probably a good bet that SpaceX breaks even after those costs are accounted. SpaceX has a lot of development engineers.
Launch has always been a terrible way to make money. Reuse doesn't change that equation.
But there's lots of other ways to make money. Commsats are much more effective.
...which is why SpaceX is entering the commsat market.
...and SpaceX does envision increased launch.
And I think you left out one part of your calculation: more total payload per launch. That's part of how SpaceX intends to lower the cost by a factor of >100x.
SpaceX's constellation would require thousands of satellites to be launched per year. And Mueller envisions them eventually growing very large (meaning you're not going to be cluster launching them much). So SpaceX most certainly envisions thousands of launches in far less than a century.
Despite my excitement about the increased access to space thanks to reusability, I am still struggling to fully reconcile myself with the Business Case for full reusability, from a launch provider point of view.
Basically, if you take it to its logical conclusion where launch costs indeed drop to say 1% of their current level as per Elon's dream, you will end up with a tremendously high ratio between the initial cost of the asset (the reusable rocket) and the revenue earned per each individual launch.
So any payback calculation from a launch provider's point of view, for building or buying a single launch vehicle, will run into the hundreds of launches just to break even.
And that's before you even buy/construct a second or third vehicle to serve as backup in case of inevitable failure or repair requirements. Then you may be talking about a thousand launches just to earn back the initial cost of the asset.
And if you then factor in the inevitable loss of a launch vehicle at some point, this high asset cost/revenue ratio means the loss hits you much harder than a loss in the current launch environment would, from a financial point of view.
Anyway, it is exciting times for space enthusiasts like us, but it seems almost like Elon's greater goal of lowering the cost of access to space is killing the very golden goose that his company is earning its revenue from. Now, he can do that because he is the first in this space, but as I said before, unless you suddenly have tens of thousands of launches per year - which seems a century away at least - the low margin high volume nature of the business model seems to discourage more entrants into this market. And seems to make profit prospects based on being purely a launch provider rather gloomy, in my view.
No doubt a lot of unexpected and exciting stuff will happen, but as it stands I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am at a loss trying to imagine the failure mode you are afraid of. The starting part is clear:
(1) Launch becomes cheaper
(2) Now every launch brings in much less revenue, and every launch failure is more painful than before
but then what? "Therefore launch providers operate at a loss and go bankrupt?" Why would that happen?
Are all low-cost airlines bankrupt now, and we are back to the days where taking a flight was a bit of a luxury? No, of course. _Some_ do go bankrupt, but those who find the right balance between "minimize prices" and "be profitable" survive. Overall, it results in more efficient passenger air transport. Yes, this means that being an airline is not easy, but the goal of economy is not to make airlines lives easy - its goal is to optimize all kinds of economic activity.
I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am at a loss trying to imagine the failure mode you are afraid of. The starting part is clear:
(1) Launch becomes cheaper
(2) Now every launch brings in much less revenue, and every launch failure is more painful than before
but then what? "Therefore launch providers operate at a loss and go bankrupt?" Why would that happen?
Are all low-cost airlines bankrupt now, and we are back to the days where taking a flight was a bit of a luxury? No, of course. _Some_ do go bankrupt, but those who find the right balance between "minimize prices" and "be profitable" survive. Overall, it results in more efficient passenger air transport. Yes, this means that being an airline is not easy, but the goal of economy is not to make airlines lives easy - its goal is to optimize all kinds of economic activity.
Good question. I guess it's the difficulty in seeing the type of volumes in orbital launches that we see in air travel. It is easy to talk about 10,000 orbital launches a year, but it just seems to boggle the mind thinking about all the technological and regulatory hurdles that will have to be cleared to get there.
I'm sure it will happen. I'm just pointing out that I find it difficult to connect all the dots yet.
I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am at a loss trying to imagine the failure mode you are afraid of. The starting part is clear:
(1) Launch becomes cheaper
(2) Now every launch brings in much less revenue, and every launch failure is more painful than before
but then what? "Therefore launch providers operate at a loss and go bankrupt?" Why would that happen?
Are all low-cost airlines bankrupt now, and we are back to the days where taking a flight was a bit of a luxury? No, of course. _Some_ do go bankrupt, but those who find the right balance between "minimize prices" and "be profitable" survive. Overall, it results in more efficient passenger air transport. Yes, this means that being an airline is not easy, but the goal of economy is not to make airlines lives easy - its goal is to optimize all kinds of economic activity.
Good question. I guess it's the difficulty in seeing the type of volumes in orbital launches that we see in air travel. It is easy to talk about 10,000 orbital launches a year, but it just seems to boggle the mind thinking about all the technological and regulatory hurdles that will have to be cleared to get there.
I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
I am at a loss trying to imagine the failure mode you are afraid of. The starting part is clear:
(1) Launch becomes cheaper
(2) Now every launch brings in much less revenue, and every launch failure is more painful than before
but then what? "Therefore launch providers operate at a loss and go bankrupt?" Why would that happen?
Are all low-cost airlines bankrupt now, and we are back to the days where taking a flight was a bit of a luxury? No, of course. _Some_ do go bankrupt, but those who find the right balance between "minimize prices" and "be profitable" survive. Overall, it results in more efficient passenger air transport. Yes, this means that being an airline is not easy, but the goal of economy is not to make airlines lives easy - its goal is to optimize all kinds of economic activity.
Good question. I guess it's the difficulty in seeing the type of volumes in orbital launches that we see in air travel. It is easy to talk about 10,000 orbital launches a year, but it just seems to boggle the mind thinking about all the technological and regulatory hurdles that will have to be cleared to get there.
Lower launch costs don't need dramatic increases in launch volume (although it should lead to an increase, economics 101). Elon demonstrates this experimentally right now: "merely" by making the rocket "the right way" and optimizing his operations for cost, he steals market from existing players. It works even with current volume, because all pre-existing players were inefficient (they were either government programs or monopolies).
The difference between the DC-3 and the Constellation was reliability and improved payload. The 707 brought a step change in lower maintenance costs and fast turnaround times. It appears to me that SpaceX Falcon is in that region where reliability is being evaluated - and if proven cost-effective, the next iteration of Falcon - supposedly the last - will see lower launch costs.
That is a reduction between first and second generation reusable vehicles of a factor of 6.
If the next generation reusable LV can match the reduction factor then the price per kg drops to about $500/kg.
The F9 is going through improvements but at the same level of generation which is about basic design and that design's basic limitations. The limitations can be stretched just like there were improvements over the operational life's of the DC-3 Constellation and 707 but still within each's generation.The difference between the DC-3 and the Constellation was reliability and improved payload. The 707 brought a step change in lower maintenance costs and fast turnaround times. It appears to me that SpaceX Falcon is in that region where reliability is being evaluated - and if proven cost-effective, the next iteration of Falcon - supposedly the last - will see lower launch costs.
That is a reduction between first and second generation reusable vehicles of a factor of 6.
If the next generation reusable LV can match the reduction factor then the price per kg drops to about $500/kg.
Despite my excitement about the increased access to space thanks to reusability, I am still struggling to fully reconcile myself with the Business Case for full reusability, from a launch provider point of view.
[rest of the post omitted]
STS at $500M per launch with a LEO payload capability of 25mt max is $20,000/kg.BLEO seat prices may not much more than 2-3 times LEO if low cost lunar and asteriod fuel becomes available. Cheaper it is access space, cheaper it is to build and maintain ISRU making BLEO space even cheaper.
SpaceX's F9 at $50M per launch of a used booster and recovery ASDS with a LEO payload capability of 15mt max is $3,333/kg.
That is a reduction between first and second generation reusable vehicles of a factor of 6.
If the next generation reusable LV can match the reduction factor then the price per kg drops to about $500/kg.
Also that in ticket price for passengers goes from the F9/D2 of $20M/passenger to $3.4M/passenger.
A forth generation reusable LV would then drop the passenger ticket price to orbit to just $500K.
The fifth generation would then get down to $80K per passenger.
The timeline is that in 5 years the 3rd generation reusable vehicles would start flying. 2022
4th - 2027
5th - 2032
At the 5th generation prices the tourist alone would be in the high hundreds to a few thousand. Now add the capability to visit the Lunar surface at $400K or go to Mars at $500 to $1M. And the volume of persons going into orbit will be very large >100X compared to our current 12/year rate (which just dropped to 10 because of high costs).
An FH with reusing the US and faring and able to recover the boosters too could come down to a Price of $30M and deliver to LEO 20mt is $1,500/kg a factor of 2 reduction which could happen in 3 years or less. In actauality that reduction could be here almost immediately with FH without reusing the US because a all used booster FH at a price <$80M (possibly as low as $60M) could deliver that $2,000 to $1,500/kg as still part of the 2nd gen vehicle. This would be a reduction of a factor of 10 between it and STS.
If this is achieved then the 4th generation reusable LV would achieve the very large passenger counts and bulk to orbit payload tonnage for $20K to orbit for passengers and $20/kg for cargo.
4th generation reusable vehicles could be as little as 10 years into the future.
STS at $500M per launch with a LEO payload capability of 25mt max is $20,000/kg.If the shuttle for 1st generation reusable and Falcon 9 2nd gen, introducing cost effective rapid reuse, I assume BFR would be 3rd gen, introducing bulk transport efficencies to spaceflight. What would 4th gen be, to get a 6-fold reduction in cost over BFR?
SpaceX's F9 at $50M per launch of a used booster and recovery ASDS with a LEO payload capability of 15mt max is $3,333/kg.
That is a reduction between first and second generation reusable vehicles of a factor of 6.
If the next generation reusable LV can match the reduction factor then the price per kg drops to about $500/kg.
Also that in ticket price for passengers goes from the F9/D2 of $20M/passenger to $3.4M/passenger.
A forth generation reusable LV would then drop the passenger ticket price to orbit to just $500K.
The fifth generation would then get down to $80K per passenger.
The timeline is that in 5 years the 3rd generation reusable vehicles would start flying. 2022
4th - 2027
5th - 2032
At the 5th generation prices the tourist alone would be in the high hundreds to a few thousand. Now add the capability to visit the Lunar surface at $400K or go to Mars at $500 to $1M. And the volume of persons going into orbit will be very large >100X compared to our current 12/year rate (which just dropped to 10 because of high costs).
An FH with reusing the US and faring and able to recover the boosters too could come down to a Price of $30M and deliver to LEO 20mt is $1,500/kg a factor of 2 reduction which could happen in 3 years or less. In actauality that reduction could be here almost immediately with FH without reusing the US because a all used booster FH at a price <$80M (possibly as low as $60M) could deliver that $2,000 to $1,500/kg as still part of the 2nd gen vehicle. This would be a reduction of a factor of 10 between it and STS.
If this is achieved then the 4th generation reusable LV would achieve the very large passenger counts and bulk to orbit payload tonnage for $20K to orbit for passengers and $20/kg for cargo.
4th generation reusable vehicles could be as little as 10 years into the future.
Despite my excitement about the increased access to space thanks to reusability, I am still struggling to fully reconcile myself with the Business Case for full reusability, from a launch provider point of view.
Basically, if you take it to its logical conclusion where launch costs indeed drop to say 1% of their current level as per Elon's dream, you will end up with a tremendously high ratio between the initial cost of the asset (the reusable rocket) and the revenue earned per each individual launch.
So any payback calculation from a launch provider's point of view, for building or buying a single launch vehicle, will run into the hundreds of launches just to break even.
And that's before you even buy/construct a second or third vehicle to serve as backup in case of inevitable failure or repair requirements. Then you may be talking about a thousand launches just to earn back the initial cost of the asset.
And if you then factor in the inevitable loss of a launch vehicle at some point, this high asset cost/revenue ratio means the loss hits you much harder than a loss in the current launch environment would, from a financial point of view.
Anyway, it is exciting times for space enthusiasts like us, but it seems almost like Elon's greater goal of lowering the cost of access to space is killing the very golden goose that his company is earning its revenue from. Now, he can do that because he is the first in this space, but as I said before, unless you suddenly have tens of thousands of launches per year - which seems a century away at least - the low margin high volume nature of the business model seems to discourage more entrants into this market. And seems to make profit prospects based on being purely a launch provider rather gloomy, in my view.
No doubt a lot of unexpected and exciting stuff will happen, but as it stands I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
Currently it looks to be an intermediary design between the F9/FH and BFR/BFS that will be the 3rd generation. It would be a full reusable SHLV (50+mt to LEO as a full reusable payload [12-25 persons crew capability to LEO]). This vehicle would also because of its smaller size would have about the same costs to operate as a vehicle BFR/BFS of 6 times larger. But it would also because of rapid resuablility higher reliability and other advances would reduce the $/kg etc from F9/FH by factor of 6 or more. BFR/BFS would then be the 4th generation just due to its size and further technological improvements over that of the intermediate.STS at $500M per launch with a LEO payload capability of 25mt max is $20,000/kg.If the shuttle for 1st generation reusable and Falcon 9 2nd gen, introducing cost effective rapid reuse, I assume BFR would be 3rd gen, introducing bulk transport efficencies to spaceflight. What would 4th gen be, to get a 6-fold reduction in cost over BFR?
SpaceX's F9 at $50M per launch of a used booster and recovery ASDS with a LEO payload capability of 15mt max is $3,333/kg.
That is a reduction between first and second generation reusable vehicles of a factor of 6.
If the next generation reusable LV can match the reduction factor then the price per kg drops to about $500/kg.
Also that in ticket price for passengers goes from the F9/D2 of $20M/passenger to $3.4M/passenger.
A forth generation reusable LV would then drop the passenger ticket price to orbit to just $500K.
The fifth generation would then get down to $80K per passenger.
The timeline is that in 5 years the 3rd generation reusable vehicles would start flying. 2022
4th - 2027
5th - 2032
At the 5th generation prices the tourist alone would be in the high hundreds to a few thousand. Now add the capability to visit the Lunar surface at $400K or go to Mars at $500 to $1M. And the volume of persons going into orbit will be very large >100X compared to our current 12/year rate (which just dropped to 10 because of high costs).
An FH with reusing the US and faring and able to recover the boosters too could come down to a Price of $30M and deliver to LEO 20mt is $1,500/kg a factor of 2 reduction which could happen in 3 years or less. In actauality that reduction could be here almost immediately with FH without reusing the US because a all used booster FH at a price <$80M (possibly as low as $60M) could deliver that $2,000 to $1,500/kg as still part of the 2nd gen vehicle. This would be a reduction of a factor of 10 between it and STS.
If this is achieved then the 4th generation reusable LV would achieve the very large passenger counts and bulk to orbit payload tonnage for $20K to orbit for passengers and $20/kg for cargo.
4th generation reusable vehicles could be as little as 10 years into the future.
There would have to be some new technoligy to pull off gen 4. Perhaps some kind of practical fusion pulse drive, taking the Orion NPP concept for superheavy lift in a more enviromentally friendly direction?
In any case, I dont see gen 4 happening anywhere near as fast as gen 2 and gen 3, since gen 2 could have happened as early as the Delta Clipper days and gan 3 just relies on launch market expansion from gen 2.
Despite my excitement about the increased access to space thanks to reusability, I am still struggling to fully reconcile myself with the Business Case for full reusability, from a launch provider point of view.
Basically, if you take it to its logical conclusion where launch costs indeed drop to say 1% of their current level as per Elon's dream, you will end up with a tremendously high ratio between the initial cost of the asset (the reusable rocket) and the revenue earned per each individual launch.
So any payback calculation from a launch provider's point of view, for building or buying a single launch vehicle, will run into the hundreds of launches just to break even.
And that's before you even buy/construct a second or third vehicle to serve as backup in case of inevitable failure or repair requirements. Then you may be talking about a thousand launches just to earn back the initial cost of the asset.
And if you then factor in the inevitable loss of a launch vehicle at some point, this high asset cost/revenue ratio means the loss hits you much harder than a loss in the current launch environment would, from a financial point of view.
Anyway, it is exciting times for space enthusiasts like us, but it seems almost like Elon's greater goal of lowering the cost of access to space is killing the very golden goose that his company is earning its revenue from. Now, he can do that because he is the first in this space, but as I said before, unless you suddenly have tens of thousands of launches per year - which seems a century away at least - the low margin high volume nature of the business model seems to discourage more entrants into this market. And seems to make profit prospects based on being purely a launch provider rather gloomy, in my view.
No doubt a lot of unexpected and exciting stuff will happen, but as it stands I am struggling to figure out the working business model for the end state that Elon has in mind.
...
4th generation reusable vehicles could be as little as 10 years into the future.
If the shuttle for 1st generation reusable and Falcon 9 2nd gen, introducing cost effective rapid reuse, I assume BFR would be 3rd gen, introducing bulk transport efficencies to spaceflight. What would 4th gen be, to get a 6-fold reduction in cost over BFR?
There would have to be some new technoligy to pull off gen 4. Perhaps some kind of practical fusion pulse drive, taking the Orion NPP concept for superheavy lift in a more enviromentally friendly direction?
In any case, I dont see gen 4 happening anywhere near as fast as gen 2 and gen 3, since gen 2 could have happened as early as the Delta Clipper days and gan 3 just relies on launch market expansion from gen 2.
While we dont know what or when gen 4 is, though, we know what gen 5 or 6 will be- Space Elevators and other launch megastructures....
4th generation reusable vehicles could be as little as 10 years into the future.
If the shuttle for 1st generation reusable and Falcon 9 2nd gen, introducing cost effective rapid reuse, I assume BFR would be 3rd gen, introducing bulk transport efficencies to spaceflight. What would 4th gen be, to get a 6-fold reduction in cost over BFR?
There would have to be some new technoligy to pull off gen 4. Perhaps some kind of practical fusion pulse drive, taking the Orion NPP concept for superheavy lift in a more enviromentally friendly direction?
In any case, I dont see gen 4 happening anywhere near as fast as gen 2 and gen 3, since gen 2 could have happened as early as the Delta Clipper days and gan 3 just relies on launch market expansion from gen 2.
4th generation could be where many launch service suppliers across the globe adopt BFR-like technology, and market expansion makes room for all of them. Competition among the suppliers would keep prices falling and convenience/opportunity expanding.
Currently, SpaceX is the sole vendor for Gen 2 and will also start out that way for Gen 3 -- until Blue and others join the party. If this doesn't light a fire under the demand side, then Gen 4 and subsequent become unlikely.
New technology beyond chemical rocketry may follow exponential growth on demand side... no one will invest in it until then. Physics will likely play a deciding role on getting out of the gravity well, though in-space options are much more viable.
Edit: Fixed quotes
Launch vendor has the opportunity to charge whatever the market will bear... in SpaceX's case, whatever an expanding market will bear.
Launch vendor has the opportunity to charge whatever the market will bear... in SpaceX's case, whatever an expanding market will bear.
For a while, sure. There's a limited window though. Eventually your market will just look at how you're doing it and do it themselves. If not them, won't your competitors?
Despite my excitement about the increased access to space thanks to reusability, I am still struggling to fully reconcile myself with the Business Case for full reusability, from a launch provider point of view.
[rest of the post omitted]
Your mistake is not taking the reliability of the launch vehicle into account.
If you have a 500M$ reusable BFR rocket, you are not going to sell a launch for a 1M$, unless you know that the rocket has less than 1/500 chance of failure. Preferably much less. Otherwise you will lose money. It's just plain statistics.
What you are going to do instead is start with a price slightly lower than an expendable launch, and slowly push it down as you go, while you figure out the reliability of your launch vehicle.
Which is exactly what SpaceX are doing.
While we dont know what or when gen 4 is, though, we know what gen 5 or 6 will be- Space Elevators and other launch megastructures.
Because that's what expansion of the launch market and development of better launch systems is leading toward- creating a market for and investment opportunity in bulk, low cost access to space. We all know the problems with building a space elevator now, but in 50 years or so, we may be building a Launch loop to service a growing lunar and martian service industry.
Launch vendor has the opportunity to charge whatever the market will bear... in SpaceX's case, whatever an expanding market will bear.
For a while, sure. There's a limited window though. Eventually your market will just look at how you're doing it and do it themselves. If not them, won't your competitors?
It's conceivable that by that time you'll just electronically upload your personality into a 3D printed android body (from local resources) on the planetary surface of your choice. Just need to get a small amount of hardware onto the surface to bootstrap the process.
I object to Blue Origin being a "fast follower." They started earlier and were working on VTVL back when SpaceX still thought parachutes were the answer.Launch vendor has the opportunity to charge whatever the market will bear... in SpaceX's case, whatever an expanding market will bear.
For a while, sure. There's a limited window though. Eventually your market will just look at how you're doing it and do it themselves. If not them, won't your competitors?
Buffett talks about a moat. Others talk about "secret sauce"... different buzzwords, same or similar concepts. Doing something that can't be easily exactly replicated. If reuse were easy, everyone would already be doing it. The SpaceX secret sauce may in fact be that they don't have to answer to investors, and the SpaceX moat may be how far ahead they are, as AncientU related in the "who wil compete" thread, they have a triple squeeze going.
Will it last forever? Of course not. And Bezos, in particular, excels at "fast follower" so SpaceX had better not rest on their laurels. But their reach always exceeds their grasp, so no danger of that any time soon. As long as Elon isn't hit by a bus.
Reusability is the pushing of costs all to the front of the line into development and manufacture of hardware and reduction of costs of operation. This requires a lot of early funding to accomplish. Which SpaceX has managed to do and BO certainly will be able to do. But others are limiting their funds during these phases, both commercial and government LV projects funding. Which will limit the effectiveness of the LV's to compete in a free market against SpaceX's and BO's developed LV's.The large development costs upfront for RLV are why ULA are going for SMART partial reuse. Lower development costs, good chance of it working first time. While it may not be able to match F9R for price it should be competitive against Ariane 6, Proton and OA NGLV.
This is another element of reusability effect on costs is where and when the costs for an reusable LV system is spent vs an expendable system.
Reusability is the pushing of costs all to the front of the line into development and manufacture of hardware and reduction of costs of operation. This requires a lot of early funding to accomplish. Which SpaceX has managed to do and BO certainly will be able to do. But others are limiting their funds during these phases, both commercial and government LV projects funding. Which will limit the effectiveness of the LV's to compete in a free market against SpaceX's and BO's developed LV's.The large development costs upfront for RLV are why ULA are going for SMART partial reuse. Lower development costs, good chance of it working first time. While it may not be able to match F9R for price it should be competitive against Ariane 6, Proton and OA NGLV.
This is another element of reusability effect on costs is where and when the costs for an reusable LV system is spent vs an expendable system.
ULA plans (hopes?) to develop a rocket with substantially less performance than New Glenn, based on the same booster engine, and they only aspire to recover the engines, whereas Blue will recover the whole booster stage. Smart? More like the art of the possible, where the possible is clearly not sufficient.
This engine contract from BO to ULA is beginning to be OT for this thread. The general point is that BO's sell of BE-4's to ULA gives them economic and political advantages. Engines revenue predates launches by easily 2 years. So as soon as the BE-4 goes into production BO will start receiving revenue for then 2 years prior to Vulcan or NG ever doing a first flight.ULA plans (hopes?) to develop a rocket with substantially less performance than New Glenn, based on the same booster engine, and they only aspire to recover the engines, whereas Blue will recover the whole booster stage. Smart? More like the art of the possible, where the possible is clearly not sufficient.
I actually don't understand what ULA is doing. Using an engine from BO plain does not make sense.
When BO starts reliably launching their own LV, why on Earth would they continue to sell their engine to a competitor? Out of their heart goodness? Surely not. At best (for ULA), they would continue to sell it at a premium, much above their internal cost. At "not best", they just sink ULA whenever they want by simply refusing to prolong the contract.
I am quite interested in the threads topic but it seems to find little to no bases for discussion. Can we have some hard numbers please?
I would like to know what a flight of the F9 costs, including all launch fees and payments by the customer. I think I have seen something similar in the past, but can't remember where or the details. We know:
Cost of F9 S1 is 70% of the hardware
Cost of F9 Fairing is 10% of the hardware
Cost of F9 S2 is 20% of the hardware (by deduction)
But thats just the hardware and not the entire cost of a flight to the customer. There are lots of fees and processes involved that are not the booster hardware and I dont know them all. Once we have settled down these numbers and maybe can predict the true cost to a customer of an F9 Bock 5 with 10 reuses each booster (lets be conservative), we can deduce what reduction in price is possible. Once we have that we can answer the threads question what the effect truely is. And also we can predict what a fully reusable system will be able to do.
For each reusable launch we have (please complete the list!):
* F9 throwaway hardware cost
* F9 reusable hardware amortization cost
* F9 refurbishment cost
* Launch fees (Range, FAA, Launch site services, etc.)
* Insurance fees
* Payload processing
* SpaceX Profit
Once this all is settled and numbered, we can see how low a price SpaceX can push the F9 / FH architecture.
The most expensive part of a whole mission from a launch standpoint is the boost stage. It represents, depending on how you count it, up to 70% of the cost of the flight.
I was like, "Guys, imagine you had 6 million dollars in cash in a pallet flying through the air
So you can imagine that if the cost of the rocket is say 60 million dollars - really we're not re-using the whole thing, but - with the fairing, assuming fairing reuse works out, and as we optimise the cost of the reuse of the booster, really looking at maybe 3/4 of the rocket cost dropping by an order of magnitude, maybe more.
On Quora Jim Cantrell claims F9 booster re-use is primarily about increasing launch frequency to improve cash flow, as well as perfecting re-use technology for Mars:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket# (https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket#)
Claims very few boosters will re-used more than '3 or so' times, so seems to be ignoring (or doesn't believe?) SpaceX's claims about block 5 aim of 10 uses without refurbishment.
On Quora Jim Cantrell claims F9 booster re-use is primarily about increasing launch frequency to improve cash flow, as well as perfecting re-use technology for Mars:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket# (https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket#)
Claims very few boosters will re-used more than '3 or so' times, so seems to be ignoring (or doesn't believe?) SpaceX's claims about block 5 aim of 10 uses without refurbishment.
On Quora Jim Cantrell claims F9 booster re-use is primarily about increasing launch frequency to improve cash flow, as well as perfecting re-use technology for Mars:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket# (https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-SpaceX-save-by-reusing-a-Falcon-rocket#)
Claims very few boosters will re-used more than '3 or so' times, so seems to be ignoring (or doesn't believe?) SpaceX's claims about block 5 aim of 10 uses without refurbishment.
If you go through the R&D costs of developing a reusable launch vehicle, the opportunity costs (in terms of fuel used for return and the lost revenue opportunity for more payload to orbit) of returning the launcher first stage, and the costs of refurbishment between flights, generally accepted practice shows that you have to re-use the booster or launch vehicle 5–10 times before you make your money back if you account for all the costs.
ULA plans (hopes?) to develop a rocket with substantially less performance than New Glenn, based on the same booster engine, and they only aspire to recover the engines, whereas Blue will recover the whole booster stage. Smart? More like the art of the possible, where the possible is clearly not sufficient.
I actually don't understand what ULA is doing. Using an engine from BO plain does not make sense.
When BO starts reliably launching their own LV, why on Earth would they continue to sell their engine to a competitor? Out of their heart goodness? Surely not. At best (for ULA), they would continue to sell it at a premium, much above their internal cost. At "not best", they just sink ULA whenever they want by simply refusing to prolong the contract.
(There is a similar argument that a smaller cheaper expendable rocket could launch the same payload to the same orbit, but this ignores the fact that such a rocket doesn't exist and actually does have a real payload reduction - it can't use recovery margins in an off-nominal mission or to lift a bigger payload).
A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
(There is a similar argument that a smaller cheaper expendable rocket could launch the same payload to the same orbit, but this ignores the fact that such a rocket doesn't exist and actually does have a real payload reduction - it can't use recovery margins in an off-nominal mission or to lift a bigger payload).
A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
How do you know the 1.1 was cheaper? I think it was said that production became more efficient with design changes.
A smaller cheap launcher does/did exist. F9 v1.1, in a apples to apples comparison SpaceX determined that going reusable reduced costs.
How do you know the 1.1 was cheaper? I think it was said that production became more efficient with design changes.
I never said it was cheaper, just cheap.
The point I was making is that the argument, that you could produce a smaller, cheaper non-reusable launcher, is directly contradicted by SpaceX. When they wanted to enhance F9 v1.1 they had three options,
1. basically leave it as is, just try and make it cheaper.
2. improve performance, but leave as a non-reusable (thus saving a lot of money getting reusability working).
3. the path they have taken.
SpaceX with full access to cost, performance and reliability data decided that reusability was the lowest cost solution. So a direct apples to apples comparison shows that it is not possible to have a cheaper expendable rocket that can launch equivalent payloads, at least not in a design similar to F9.
The v1.0 was already small, and cheap enough as an expendable. SpaceX decided it would be cheaper per flight to make it bigger and reusable in v1.1, and they doubled down on that move with v1.2.
So I'd like to know how many times will the typical Falcon booster stage get re-used? How many flights in total can we expect from a typical Falcon booster? That's obviously going to be the biggest determinant on cost.I think someone from SX said that it would be max 3 flights for block 3 cores and about 10 flights(without major refurbishment) for block 5 cores.
So far I've heard people here say that a booster would likely only be re-flown a couple of times max - so basically 3 flights total for a booster.
Musk and Bezos have thrown around the 747 analogy, saying that plane tickets would be a lot more expensive if you had to throw away the plane after each flight. Well, they'd still be pretty darn expensive if you have to throw away the plane after just 3 flights.
Are there any plans to go beyond just a couple of re-flights, and have something that can fly, say 10 times?
It was Gwynne Shotwell on the Space Show and she said, it was more like inspection than refurbishment and then go fly and they hope to re fly the block 5's a dozen or so times.
I think someone from SX said that it would be max 3 flights for block 3 cores and about 10 flights(without major refurbishment) for block 5 cores.
How do the costs go up when making the vehicle more and more reusable (ie. increasing the re-flight capability)?
Is there some magic number with an asymptote line, so that the costs skyrocket dramatically as you try to push the reusability (number of re-flights) beyond a certain point?
SpaceX with full access to cost, performance and reliability data decided that reusability was the lowest cost solution. So a direct apples to apples comparison shows that it is not possible to have a cheaper expendable rocket that can launch equivalent payloads, at least not in a design similar to F9.That's one explanation of their behavior.
Their long-term aim is at least 100 reflights of each booster core, and I heard this directly from the SpaceX VP of business development at the CRS-8 launch viewing on the OMB-II verandah.Well so far they Shotwell on the Space Show said they are looking to do 3 launches off a booster and V5 will be good for 10 without major work.
Their long-term aim is at least 100 reflights of each booster core, and I heard this directly from the SpaceX VP of business development at the CRS-8 launch viewing on the OMB-II verandah.Well so far they Shotwell on the Space Show said they are looking to do 3 launches off a booster and V5 will be good for 10 without major
So either V5 will do that with a lot of refurb work above "inspection" or they are at least another generation to go from 10 to 100. :(
I expect refurb after each ten, retirement after 100.Both Shotwell and Musk have been very quiet on refurb procedures. SX spent a very long time getting the first couple of boosters ready for re-flight. I'm not sure they actually have any refurb procedures worked out for this generation, although I'm sure they learned all (nearly all?) they need to ensure the next generation can be done fairly straightforwardly.
No-one (except SpaceX) has ANY idea of the refurb costs after each ten flights.True, and that represents a significant (but difficult to value) piece of IP for SX. Although I suspect the technicians involved could give a fair guestimate.
Forgive another car analogy, but I'd expect the refurb to be on the order of a new set of brake pads. Not an every day occurrence, but certainly not a transmission rebuild which is often not cost effective.I suspect more like what happens if there are a dozen brake pads and they are all glued in and you have to scrape them off before re-gluing the new set. :(
Going with the brake pad analogy the items that are the ones receiving the most degradation from use are the engines, grid fins, and landing legs. I would expect significant replacement (re-manufacturing) of these parts. Basically replace all the engines, the grid fins and legs. Send them off for evaluation to determine if they can be individually refurbished or just cheaper to scrap. The then refurbished stage has new or like new engines, grid fins and legs. The other item the tank and avionics are such that failed avionics are replaced as needed regardless of what the flight number. The tank if down checked, then the stage is basically scrapped by removing all the usable parts putting them back into inventory. That can also happen at anytime or even the stage (tank) could fly more than 100 times. The real nature of re-flying tanks multiple times is not well known (except for the the two flights is almost completely unknown).Their long-term aim is at least 100 reflights of each booster core, and I heard this directly from the SpaceX VP of business development at the CRS-8 launch viewing on the OMB-II verandah.Well so far they Shotwell on the Space Show said they are looking to do 3 launches off a booster and V5 will be good for 10 without major
So either V5 will do that with a lot of refurb work above "inspection" or they are at least another generation to go from 10 to 100. :(
I expect refurb after each ten, retirement after 100. No-one (except SpaceX) has ANY idea of the refurb costs after each ten flights. Forgive another car analogy, but I'd expect the refurb to be on the order of a new set of brake pads. Not an every day occurrence, but certainly not a transmission rebuild which is often not cost effective.
Going with the brake pad analogy the items that are the ones receiving the most degradation from use are the engines, grid fins, and landing legs. I would expect significant replacement (re-manufacturing) of these parts. Basically replace all the engines, the grid fins and legs. Send them off for evaluation to determine if they can be individually refurbished or just cheaper to scrap. The then refurbished stage has new or like new engines, grid fins and legs. The other item the tank and avionics are such that failed avionics are replaced as needed regardless of what the flight number. The tank if down checked, then the stage is basically scrapped by removing all the usable parts putting them back into inventory. That can also happen at anytime or even the stage (tank) could fly more than 100 times. The real nature of re-flying tanks multiple times is not well known (except for the the two flights is almost completely unknown).That sounds about right. One thing you may not have factored in is how much data the avionics can collect. In aircraft the addition of maintenance data recorders, capturing many more channels than the crash rated "black boxes," shifted the whole basis of maintenance from scheduled to "when necessary" or "when predicted" once data patterns showing impending faults started to be recognized.
There is just a lot of unknowns.True, and SX is currently the only company in the world with any actual data on what the real issues are, in the same way that Air France and British Airways were the only airlines that acquired actual data on what it takes to really operate a large M2.2 passenger aircraft over decades.
Info is such that F9 can reliably do at least 2 flights. The refurb time from info on last re-flight was 2 months with new info that should be forthcoming on the next that give light of whether the time and manpower/ related costs are leveled out or continue to decline.
If you're not using LH2 but you do want reusability I find it very hard to understand why you would not use LOX cooling. AFAIK all other LRE's use the oxidizer for the cooling, some of which are very nasty.
Both Rotary Rocket and NASA ran LOX cooling tests in the early 90's, without mishap, including deliberate leaks into the CC, but the folklore around this subject is very tenacious and the facts difficult to get hold of. :(
BTW thanks for that figure of $500/day for staff costs.
With fairing reuse on the verge of happening it might time for a new version of my cost modelling game.
The norm for LREs is to use the fuel for cooling the CC, not LOX.When I posted
John
AFAIK all other LRE's use the oxidizer for the cooling, some of which are very nasty.I meant all other LRE's that do not use LOX as an oxidizer.
In fact the first Merlin was ablatively cooled. Which is an even odder choice for a design if you're planning to make reusable, which has always been Musks goal. :(If you're not using LH2 but you do want reusability I find it very hard to understand why you would not use LOX cooling. AFAIK all other LRE's use the oxidizer for the cooling, some of which are very nasty.Quite interesting post. But isn't the lack of use of LOX cooling quite easily explained if you take into consideration that the Merlin engine was designed by a start-up and that it is also designed to be affordable in expendable mode.
Both Rotary Rocket and NASA ran LOX cooling tests in the early 90's, without mishap, including deliberate leaks into the CC, but the folklore around this subject is very tenacious and the facts difficult to get hold of. :(
BTW thanks for that figure of $500/day for staff costs.
With fairing reuse on the verge of happening it might time for a new version of my cost modelling game.
If you look at it that way LOX cooling would have added significant development risk.It certainly would have added significant fear of a development risk. :(
Furthermore the Raptor engine uses Methane which does not have the disadvantages of RP-1. Methane should contain (almost) no sulfer and deposit much less carbon.I guess that will depend on where they source it from and wheather it's doses with Mercaptans to give a clearly detectable odor, and how well they remove it.
And how does LOX cooling affect TWR?Ask HMX. His company built a test engine to do this. :)
Edit: Fixed broken quote
In fact the first Merlin was ablatively cooled. Which is an even odder choice for a design if you're planning to make reusable, which has always been Musks goal. :(If you're not using LH2 but you do want reusability I find it very hard to understand why you would not use LOX cooling. AFAIK all other LRE's use the oxidizer for the cooling, some of which are very nasty.Quite interesting post. But isn't the lack of use of LOX cooling quite easily explained if you take into consideration that the Merlin engine was designed by a start-up and that it is also designed to be affordable in expendable mode.
Both Rotary Rocket and NASA ran LOX cooling tests in the early 90's, without mishap, including deliberate leaks into the CC, but the folklore around this subject is very tenacious and the facts difficult to get hold of. :(
BTW thanks for that figure of $500/day for staff costs.
With fairing reuse on the verge of happening it might time for a new version of my cost modelling game.
Long road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/908254079092002816QuoteLong road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100.
This seems considerably more certain than prior pronouncements.
And clearly means that upper/lower/fairing each can't have >100K spent on them to refurb and get back to the launch site. (counting fuel)
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/908254079092002816It's a truism of launch vehicle economics.QuoteLong road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100.
This seems considerably more certain than prior pronouncements.
And clearly means that upper/lower/fairing each can't have >100K spent on them to refurb and get back to the launch site. (counting fuel)
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/908254079092002816QuoteLong road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100.
This seems considerably more certain than prior pronouncements.
And clearly means that upper/lower/fairing each can't have >100K spent on them to refurb and get back to the launch site. (counting fuel)
It's a truism of launch vehicle economics.
If I were guessing I'd say the team have a firmer handle on the physics of US reentry and they are ready to give it a serious try. But we've been here before. Let's see how they handle the 26x bigger energy dissipation problem that orbital entry has over booster recovery.
And Dragon.Yes all reentry vehicles past and present have been lifting bodies of various shapes. The near future ones will continue with tryout of new shapes and new TPS. Looking for that combination that enables good payload capability and lower costs/launch.
Same way the Space Shuttle, Buran, X-37B and Dream Chaser does it, with some type of reusable TPS. Its not like we haven't done this before. It is different in that it is more of lifting body (smaller aero-surfaces).All of which have several things in common.
... Let's see how they handle the 26x bigger energy dissipation problem that orbital entry has over booster recovery.
Stage | Mass | Velocity | Energy | Energy per mT | Peak heating | Altitude | Velocity | Acceleration |
S1 BulgariaSat-1 | 49 mT | 2,384 m/s | 139 MJ | 2.84 MJ | 116 kW/m^2 | 25kms | 1,656 m/s | 3.5 g |
S2 LEO | 6 mT | 7,400 m/s | 164 MJ | 27.3 MJ | 732 kW/m^2 | 52 kms | 6,135 m/s | 2.2 g |
S2 GTO | 6 mT | 9,600 m/s | 276 MJ | 46 MJ | 1,836 kW/m^2 | 55 kms | 8,744 m/s | 3.1 g |
... Let's see how they handle the 26x bigger energy dissipation problem that orbital entry has over booster recovery.
The highest Falcon S1 velocity so far is BulgariaSat-1, which was doing 2389 m/s at the start of its entry burn.
FWIW, here is a table comparing BulgariaSat-1 with some values taken from sims of Falcon S2 EDL from LEO and GTO.
Stage Mass Velocity Energy Energy per mT Peak heating Altitude Velocity Acceleration S1 BulgariaSat-1 49 mT 2,384 m/s 139 MJ 2.84 MJ 116 kW/m^2 25kms 1,656 m/s 3.5 g S2 LEO 6 mT 7,400 m/s 164 MJ 27.3 MJ 732 kW/m^2 52 kms 6,135 m/s 2.2 g S2 GTO 6 mT 9,600 m/s 276 MJ 46 MJ 1,836 kW/m^2 55 kms 8,744 m/s 3.1 g
From these figures S2-GTO needs to dissipate 46/2.84 = 16.2 times more energy/tonne than BulgariaSat-1.
S2-GTO would have 1,836/116 = 15.8 times more peak heating.
In my sims, I'm assuming S2 doesn't need landing engines, and hence fuel (except for nitrogen). If it did, then both energy to dissipate and peak heating would be a little higher.
Where are those "peak heating" and "altitude" numbers from/how are they calculated?
Shouldn't S2 GTO be able to aerobrake into LEO before the final re-entry?
In my sims, I'm assuming S2 doesn't need landing engines, and hence fuel (except for nitrogen). If it did, then both energy to dissipate and peak heating would be a little higher.
No, not "little higher" but "much higher".
Almost half of your 1st stage weight is landing fuel but you totally ignore it for 2nd stage?
Wingless reentry vehicle designs exist, including quite large and long ones. Slosh baffles exist. Pressurized tanks are rigid. Payload bay with doors will be a little heavier than F9's carbon composite inter-stage. Windward TPS will weigh no more than 10 kg/m^2. SuperDracos exist for landing. Lots of work, but nothing way out. I have attached a Russian reusable vehicle similar in shape to what we might expect for a reusable S2. This is not that different from BFS.What you're missing is you have to have all of these things together, and you're grossly underestimating any kind of payload bay mass. The Shuttle payload bay was not a pressure stabilized design so the doors (or their frames) had to be load carrying.
In my sims, I'm assuming S2 doesn't need landing engines, and hence fuel (except for nitrogen). If it did, then both energy to dissipate and peak heating would be a little higher.So how does it land?
In my sims, I'm assuming S2 doesn't need landing engines, and hence fuel (except for nitrogen). If it did, then both energy to dissipate and peak heating would be a little higher.So how does it land?
Wingless reentry vehicle designs exist, including quite large and long ones. Slosh baffles exist. Pressurized tanks are rigid. Payload bay with doors will be a little heavier than F9's carbon composite inter-stage. Windward TPS will weigh no more than 10 kg/m^2. SuperDracos exist for landing. Lots of work, but nothing way out. I have attached a Russian reusable vehicle similar in shape to what we might expect for a reusable S2. This is not that different from BFS.What you're missing is you have to have all of these things together, and you're grossly underestimating any kind of payload bay mass. The Shuttle payload bay was not a pressure stabilized design so the doors (or their frames) had to be load carrying.
All of these features multiply together to make the problem very much harder. You're trying to cram the requirements of an orbiter into the payload fraction of a stage and wishing something will turn up.
As for the Russian concept. I learned a long time ago that in CAD anything is possible.
I am not saying that there wouldn't be a very large payload hit, there will be. Pessimistically, remaining payload capacity may be as low as 5000 kg to ISS.And you got that number how exactly?
I understand that the payload bay and doors need to be load carrying similar to an inter-stage but worse.I don't think you do. Shuttle weighed around 200Kb to carry 65Klb to orbit. It never achieved that and managed about 55Klb. IOW it was 72.5% structure. the S2 is is more in the 3-5% range.
On top of this you need either parachutes, or landing propellant. Ballistic Coefficient will be somewhere around 150- 160 kg/m^2 (30-33 lb/ft^2).Derived how?
I think a good way of thinking about the problem is to start by thinking how you would integrate a Dragon 2 with its second stage into a single recoverable vehicle. It would be about 26 M long.I'll leave others to decide if they agree with that plan.
"I can see how people might take it that we are going to shut down and transfer. This is not the case. We’ll continue to produce Falcon, then develop BFR and then offer it to the market and see what the market chooses."
I hope this is the right thread for this:
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:QuoteDiscount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
I hope this is the right thread for this:
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:QuoteDiscount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
This thread's title is not very helpful.
The "cost" to SX is unknown. The development budget is stated to be circa $1Bn
What matters is the "cost" to customers for access to space.
Or price as most people call it.
And the answer to the difference reusability is going to make to price is now clear.
Nothing
If you could get into orbit at 10s of $m price you still can.
If you can't. You still can't. :(
This was always one of the options of pricing reusable stages. The even worse option would be they started charging a premium for pre-flown boosters as they were known to work.
"Profit" may not be Musks ultimate goal but development cost recovery ASAP certainly does.
But not to worry $5m a launch will be here when BFS finally starts flying.
Right?
I hope this is the right thread for this:The previous statements are key context for that quote, and indicate that they know that what the market will choose is obvious. He had repeated about there being a "stable" of F9 rockets by then. What he says doesn't conflict with anything Musk said at IAC, but clarifies it. Rather than shut down F9 production while BFR is in development and cross their fingers that nothing goes wrong, they will wait until BFR is flying and they are not getting more F9 orders so they can be certain that their stockpile is large enough to cover the remaining F9 contracts.
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:- Falcon 9 is here to stay longer Quote:
Quote"I can see how people might take it that we are going to shut down and transfer. This is not the case. We’ll continue to produce Falcon, then develop BFR and then offer it to the market and see what the market chooses."- Discount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
- Currently there is no need for the Texas launch sites.
- Falcon Heavy is still planned and fly this year.
"Profit" may not be Musks ultimate goal but development cost recovery ASAP certainly does.You clearly didn't actually read the link (it is not that long) since the part I referenced above directly contradicts this.
I hope this is the right thread for this:So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:Discount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
- Ed Kyle
So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
I hope this is the right thread for this:So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:Discount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
- Ed Kyle
He also mentions that "the economics are not quite that simple." I am guessing that refers to the fact that any increase in contracts won due to lower prices would have to be factored in, plus internal launches for the constellation will have interesting accounting. Also as I see it, the $1 billion is a sunk cost at this point, so it doesn't truly matter, and in an analysis of "was it worth it" you have to account for the fact that it got them the experience they need to design BFR, so in some difficult to account for way BFR can pay this off.But let's start with the chunk of cost (to SX) that not building a booster saves them.
And you'd be wrong, however what I didn't do was include the word "partial" in my comment."Profit" may not be Musks ultimate goal but development cost recovery ASAP certainly does.You clearly didn't actually read the link (it is not that long) since the part I referenced above directly contradicts this.
Also, the price difference will not be 0, he said the difference in price between new and reused will go away, this does not mean that they will charge current new prices for everything, just the same price for everything. And the rough analysis I did above indicates we can know something about costs.That is certainly an option.
It's hard to have a discussion just centered on costs. Because the assumption is that all else is the same. That's not always true.Indeed.
But its not if you've changed the industry to depend on reuse to be the key stimulus for growth.
I straight up don't believe Ochinero; I think he's covering for the fact that SpaceX is phasing out the reuse discount.I hope this is the right thread for this:So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:Discount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
- Ed Kyle
This.I hope this is the right thread for this:So no discount. If SpaceX had not spent the $1 billion for reuse development, it could be charging less, flying smaller rockets to get the same capability, etc.?
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/)
Peter B. de Selding reports the remarks by SpaceX Sr. Director Tom Ochinero. Some key points are:Discount for Falcon 9 with re-used first stage will be phased out
- Ed Kyle
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
But they would certainly not be closer to a vehicle than can get affordably anyone Mars.
I straight up don't believe Ochinero; I think he's covering for the fact that SpaceX is phasing out the reuse discount.Not really a cover up. More a simple statement of what SX are going to do. Because they can.
SpaceX plans 30-40 flights per year. If vast majority of them are reused with block 5 with same current price but the significantly lower (~$30 million less) internal costs, then they can pay back that $1 billion in a single year, not 10.OTOH if you're right (given his comments about it "Taking 10 years to recover the $1Bn spent" would seem a bit deceptive.
So I think SpaceX just wants to keep the costs higher for as long as the market will bear so they can pay for BFR with the profits.Should this come as a surprise to anyone?
Now spacex is valued at 50-125 billion. This means reusability investment of 1 billion cost not 1 but 5 billion.
This is one way of reconciling Ochinero's comments: if you invest $1 billion in a very risky bet, you'll need much more than 1:1 return to justify the risk of the original investment.
Now spacex is valued at 50-125 billion. This means reusability investment of 1 billion cost not 1 but 5 billion.
Wrong take away. The actual investment, in real dollars, is $1 billion. The value of that investment is now estimated at $5 billion.
Don't worry too much about it. Blue Origin can compete, and even China and Europe have F9-like recovery of boosters in the conceptual design stage. SpaceX just has to make hay while the Sun shines in order to pay for the next big step.I straight up don't believe Ochinero; I think he's covering for the fact that SpaceX is phasing out the reuse discount.Not really a cover up. More a simple statement of what SX are going to do. Because they can.Quote from: RobotbeatSpaceX plans 30-40 flights per year. If vast majority of them are reused with block 5 with same current price but the significantly lower (~$30 million less) internal costs, then they can pay back that $1 billion in a single year, not 10.OTOH if you're right (given his comments about it "Taking 10 years to recover the $1Bn spent" would seem a bit deceptive.Quote from: RobotbeatSo I think SpaceX just wants to keep the costs higher for as long as the market will bear so they can pay for BFR with the profits.Should this come as a surprise to anyone?
However for those of us think any serious expansion of the use of space (IE on orbit mfg or settlement, holidays to orbit or the Moon etc) will need a serious (1-2 orders of magnitude) reduction in price that's not good news.
But not really a surprise to anyone familiar with the classic economics of the sole mfg/sole operator model. :(
Musk comes from the IT industry. It's a business with a long history of viewing competition as good, but monopoly (NCR, IBM, Microsoft) as much better. :( Something to keep in mind.
I would like to see them move the price down a bit to demonstrate to the market that lower prices are coming. It should increase launch demand at the margins.
My point is, that as reusability is no doubt lowering internal costs for SpaceX, I am not sure that lowering launch costs is the best move right now.
Not until their manifest is burned down. Maybe next year.My point is, that as reusability is no doubt lowering internal costs for SpaceX, I am not sure that lowering launch costs is the best move right now.
I think after talking so much about reducing cost they should reduce their prices just a little, say below the $ 60 million threshold. No reason to go to $ 40 million or less, even if they could.
In most of the possible Antitrust application cases against US LV industry providers, National Security interests would squash any FTC actions. These are primarily about mergers into a monopolistic situation and price fixing at artificially higher values by conspiring with other providers. Actually since this already had happened by the creation of ULA and the merger creation of a monopoly was allowed for NS interests, any FTC legal action against US LV providers for such antitrust actions is unlikely to occur.If I were chief economic advisor to Elon, I would counsel him to maximize revenue on the Satellite internet business by keeping launch prices high, to keep out competitors such that SpaceX can offer the fastest and cheapest space based internet on the market. If successful, Mars colony money should be readily available.Would invite antitrust trouble, if not in the U.S. than certainly in Europe, given what's happened there to U.S. companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp
- Ed Kyle
I would like to see them move the price down a bit to demonstrate to the market that lower prices are coming. It should increase launch demand at the margins.what you're talking about is called "price elasticity."
I think after talking so much about reducing cost they should reduce their prices just a little, say below the $ 60 million threshold. No reason to go to $ 40 million or less, even if they could.Why?
Did cutting launch prices on flight proven stages by 30% increase the number of contracts SX picked up?
Did cutting launch prices on flight proven stages by 30% increase the number of contracts SX picked up?
I don't know that SpaceX cut the prices by 30% on flight proven stages. In fact, I seriously doubt that is true.
And now looking to be 0 %.Did cutting launch prices on flight proven stages by 30% increase the number of contracts SX picked up?
I don't know that SpaceX cut the prices by 30% on flight proven stages. In fact, I seriously doubt that is true.
They didn't. The 30% number was tossed around before rebuilding LC-40 became a thing. Actual cut is of order 10% for now.
quick observation- there is no reason why, with 1 single provider with reusability in a market, the price should go much down. Assuming that the provider is led by profit maximisation and not by charity/ideology, the price will decrease enough for the more competitive provider to eat out all possible contracts, but not an inch more. it COULD decrease further, but it would make no sense for the launch provider. You need at least 2 providers with reusability (and strong anti-cartel oversight!) to ensure that costs reduction are transmitted in structural terms into the pricing. Otherwise, cost reductions only increase profit margins.Indeed. With no effective competition why should they?
market structure of reference:Bertrand-Edgeworth oligopolitstic competition model with constraints on individual firms' capacity of absorbing all market demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%E2%80%93Edgeworth_model
Time is money. Previously SpaceX offered cheaper rockets (62 million) but you had to wait months if not years to launch. That negated much of the cost savings vis a vis their competition.
Now you can launch immediately for 62 million or wait many months and pay more for a competitor's rocket. SpaceX is now winning on two fronts. Because of this you could legitimately argue that SpaceX should be charging even more than 62 million for this promptness and they still would be reducing costs for their customers due to earlier received revenues from faster satellite launches.
Time is money. Previously SpaceX offered cheaper rockets (62 million) but you had to wait months if not years to launch. That negated much of the cost savings vis a vis their competition.
Now you can launch immediately for 62 million or wait many months and pay more for a competitor's rocket. SpaceX is now winning on two fronts. Because of this you could legitimately argue that SpaceX should be charging even more than 62 million for this promptness and they still would be reducing costs for their customers due to earlier received revenues from faster satellite launches.
I am guessing in 2 years, rocket will be not limiting factor, but range availability for Spacex. Rocket will be waiting for Satellite. They will no queue.Time is money. Previously SpaceX offered cheaper rockets (62 million) but you had to wait months if not years to launch. That negated much of the cost savings vis a vis their competition.
Now you can launch immediately for 62 million or wait many months and pay more for a competitor's rocket. SpaceX is now winning on two fronts. Because of this you could legitimately argue that SpaceX should be charging even more than 62 million for this promptness and they still would be reducing costs for their customers due to earlier received revenues from faster satellite launches.
If you're talking about being able to move up the queue through accepting a pre-flown booster, that advantage is going to soon disappear. Moving up the launch queue is only an option right now because SpaceX has pre-flown boosters to use that are sitting idle. Once there is widespread adoption of reused boosters by the satellite industry, your place in the queue will just be your place in the queue. With both SES's and Iridium's adoption, plus their imminent usage on NASA's CRS launches, that day will very soon be at hand. Of course, SpaceX being able to reuse boosters is vital to their strategy of raising their launch rate. So, they'll be able to burn down their backlog much more quickly. But, very soon there won't be any line jumping because pretty much everyone will accept a reused booster.
If you're talking about general lead time from contract agreement to launch, then SpaceX is still only selling launches for 2 years in the future. Though they may offer shorter lead times for government launches and/or higher prices. There's really not much demand for anything else because, except in the event of a customer swapping launchers, no customers are stockpiling satellites to launch when launchers are available.
Quite a billion posts to filter through, so apologies if already asked/answered:
Any ideas when the first time attempt at a 3-time flown booster will occur?
So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
It means you need to stockpile fewer Block 5s "just in case" since you have a whole bunch of warehoused recovered pre5s. You can switch over a few months earlier.So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
Ugh. That would seem to be a rather ugly option, since by the time the BFR comes online they will be, what, no younger than 5 years old?
I'd have to think that building a few extra Block 5 would make better sense, but then we're still left with the mystery of what they will do with the leftover Block 3&4.
I wonder about the component parts. What is best speculation about the reusability of engines on stages that might not be worth upgrading. Were the engines reused from the one they scrapped?
Is it even worth it to tear down a stage to tankage and build a new block 5 around the old tankage? or are the tanks different enough (fill drain points, inspection hatches, whatever) that this is not cost effective. SpaceX know but we can only guess.
It's funny to consider that once customers stop being concerned with new vs pre-flown that SpaceX could have a warehouse of 150-200 block 3/4 engines to mate with otherwise new boosters. If they can be uprated to block 5 great. If not, and they can only use them on lower energy missions, it still seems like a boon.
I wonder about the component parts. What is best speculation about the reusability of engines on stages that might not be worth upgrading. Were the engines reused from the one they scrapped?It's a fair question. Obviously the design has certain major sub divisions. It depends on how they are joined together. If they those joints can be broken and re-made cleanly then reuse at that level should be possible, and you'd like to go at the highest level possible.
Is it even worth it to tear down a stage to tankage and build a new block 5 around the old tankage? or are the tanks different enough (fill drain points, inspection hatches, whatever) that this is not cost effective. SpaceX know but we can only guess.
TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk.It's funny to consider that once customers stop being concerned with new vs pre-flown that SpaceX could have a warehouse of 150-200 block 3/4 engines to mate with otherwise new boosters. If they can be uprated to block 5 great. If not, and they can only use them on lower energy missions, it still seems like a boon.
Interesting possibility - rebuilding some (or all) of the Block 3/4 engines to the latest version.
We do know via the Commercial Crew program updates that SpaceX is instituting a new "blisk", which is a combination of a blade and disk in one single forging - cutting edge technology that is supposed to address cracks in the current engines that are a concern for human-rating, and no doubt for reuse too.
<snip - of blisks>
TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk.
Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.
Which is why historically turbine mfgs have gone with making the disks out of one alloy and the blades out of another, allowing them to use the optimal choice of both material properties and grain growth direction for optimum performance. This is the "high performance" option.<snip - of blisks>Designing is easy.
TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk.
Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.
Manufacturing is not.
It is very easy to design an unmanufacturable object, and if you do it can be hugely expensive to find that out. It's also going to be more expensive to get it working, which is important at the beginning of a design cycle.A subject stressed in Production Engineering Degrees as this problem has been extensively studied. CAD systems can do automatic "fit and clearance" checking and In principle any machining cycle can by tested by a dry run with a block of foam.
'Touch labour is bad'. Well, that depends on if it takes a hundred or ten thousand hours to assemble and inspect.SX were saying they were moving to "explosive forming" to make combustion chambers. That suggests they value operator time very highly, given they are prepared to move to a pretty exotic mfg method.
If it's a hundred, even at $100/hr, that may be quite negligible.
I suspect SpaceX is warehousing the pre-5 landed boosters as a way to get a jump on stockpiling F9 cores as a risk-reduction measure so they can switch the line to BFR as early as possible.It does not make any sense whatsoever.
So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it)..
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it)..
Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?
I said BFR orbits. I was clear.
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
Okay! So you acknowledge they have at least a 20% chance that they'll accomplish BFR to orbit by 2022. Glad we have that settled!Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.
Hell, even Musk himself, very well known for his optimism in timeline matters, said that date is merely "aspirational". In other words, it is never going to launch in 2022.
EDIT: I forgot he was talking about Mars in this context. Still I find it extremely unlikely SpaceX for once will do everything on time. That would be pretty much miracle.Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.Okay! So you acknowledge they have at least a 20% chance that they'll accomplish BFR to orbit by 2022. Glad we have that settled!
Okay! Guessing by your lack of answer you acknowledge that there is, in fact, evidence for claim that they are very unlikely to meet that deadline. Glad we have that settled!Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Which is why historically turbine mfgs have gone with making the disks out of one alloy and the blades out of another, allowing them to use the optimal choice of both material properties and grain growth direction for optimum performance. This is the "high performance" option.<snip - of blisks>Designing is easy.
TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk.
Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.
Manufacturing is not.
The joker in the pack is the large number of blade/disk interfaces, which can act as stress concentrators if not properly designed.
Blisk or Bling designs are always a compromise in material properties and crystal growth axis. Given SX has always been strongly cost driven I was surprised they went for the high cost/high performance option.
............
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.
And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?
Does anyone know if NASA is getting a price break for agreeing to fly CRS-13 on a used booster? Is there anything in the CRS contract that would allow this?
Disagree; SpaceX isn't changing the service, they are offering the same payload to the same orbit for the same price (meaning, not increasing the price). If they could use a magic carpet to do it for free they still would be offering the same service.Does anyone know if NASA is getting a price break for agreeing to fly CRS-13 on a used booster? Is there anything in the CRS contract that would allow this?
I would assume there is something, since it is the service provider NASA is paying (i.e. SpaceX) that wants to change the service offering (i.e. reflown rocket and spacecraft vs new for both). I would not be surprised if we can't see the info though...
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.
And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?
I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
I'd scrap them and sell the bits off as souvenirs.
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.
Hell, even Musk himself, very well known for his optimism in timeline matters, said that date is merely "aspirational". In other words, it is never going to launch in 2022.
EDIT: I forgot he was talking about Mars in this context. Still I find it extremely unlikely SpaceX for once will do everything on time. That would be pretty much miracle.Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
I'd scrap them and sell the bits off as souvenirs.
Can't do this. The Chinese would probably drive the price up out of the reach of common folks, and then a year later we'd be seeing an F9 rocket mosaic in Beijing. :o
I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot.Me either. It depends. If they run 3 shifts they could move to 2 or 1, but if they already run 1 anyway..
BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely.Hasn't Musk said it's getting a new factory with water access? I'm sure this has been mentioned. If they can retain the staff but relocate and retrain them that would be the ideal approach. Head count remains the same but different use of resources.
They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.Until BFS is proved out SX will have to keep mfg upper stages, unless the FH test flight produces absolutely astonishing results in this area. Time will tell if it does.
Its quite possible that SpaceX considers more expensive material/parts OK, when used on 1st stage that is designed/expected to fly 10+ timesYou have it backwards.
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.
And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?
I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.Unfortunately that's only half a vehicle. :(
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.
And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?
I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
I suspect SpaceX is warehousing the pre-5 landed boosters as a way to get a jump on stockpiling F9 cores as a risk-reduction measure so they can switch the line to BFR as early as possible.SpaceX is stockpiling boosters because they don't have anything to use them for right now. Specially those that have been to GTO trajectories.
So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
I am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.Dry storage of rockets is nearly free compared with making them.
I am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.Dry storage of rockets is nearly free compared with making them.
It is not quite impossible there may be a problem with block 5, for example.
Being in a position after an accident to be able to say 'or, you can fly a block 4 that has flown before' might considerably speed return to flight.
More interesting will be where, when, and in what quantity they start storing the eventual overbuild. The number of customers 'insisting' on paying for new cores may drop rapidly when these customers realize that they are subsidizing the competition and SpaceX itself (which is a competitor as Starlink begins to fly).
Customers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.Do you have a link to support that assertion? Seems quite possible SpaceX is the one choosing what boosters to offer to the customer, and it is SpaceX that is being conservative by only offering the more lightly used boosters.
Customers choose which booster to fly, SpaceX accepts.Customers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.Do you have a link to support that assertion? Seems quite possible SpaceX is the one choosing what boosters to offer to the customer, and it is SpaceX that is being conservative by only offering the more lightly used boosters.
Some GTO recoveries clearly aren't in good shape enough for refurb, but many are, unless there's something SpaceX isn't telling us.
Customers choose which booster to fly, SpaceX accepts.Customers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.Do you have a link to support that assertion? Seems quite possible SpaceX is the one choosing what boosters to offer to the customer, and it is SpaceX that is being conservative by only offering the more lightly used boosters.
SpaceX choose which booster to fly, customer must agree.
To me its potato, potato, same net result.
It would be different if SpaceX took any of its GTO recoveries and asked the customer to use that.
Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?
The key is there isn't a long enough line of customers willing to re-fly, so the customer is the chooser, SpaceX is the beggar.
SpaceX has a lot of interest in opening up that re-use envelope and showing their process is safe.
Some GTO recoveries clearly aren't in good shape enough for refurb, but many are, unless there's something SpaceX isn't telling us.
...They did run a GTO stage that came back very hot through at least 8 full duration static fires.
Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?
Well... at first you'd get a discount if you flew on the reused booster. That's gone now. Soon you'll pay extra to fly on a fresh booster. Then you'll pay (a lot) extra to fly on Falcon instead of BFR. Then you'll fly on BFR or go elsewhere.Indeed. It will be their way, or the highway.
One of the GTO boosters is getting reflown... just as a side booster to Falcon Heavy.That should provide some very interesting data
That's one option. It depends how many shifts they run to make an F9. If mfg is running 3 shifts they can drop that to 2, and/or reassign people to the BFR factory.More interesting will be where, when, and in what quantity they start storing the eventual overbuild. The number of customers 'insisting' on paying for new cores may drop rapidly when these customers realize that they are subsidizing the competition and SpaceX itself (which is a competitor as Starlink begins to fly).
Tucson. There are a lot of aircraft stored there because of the climate.
But I think they will start to skew the S2:S1 ratio before there is a glut of block 5 S1s... Not sure what effect that has on cost.
I am convinced that they will drop all older stages including block 4 once the first block 5 has been checked and reflown. They will not want a mix of different hardware in the inventory.I can see your PoV. AFAIK there are no F1's in the back of a hanger "just in case."
I could imagine that they can upgrade block 4 to block 5. If possible they may do that. But not flying a mix.
Wouldn't it be SpaceX's interest to at least re-fly one of those GTO recoveries, the booster that landed on the very best shape at least once to prove that's safe too ?SpaceX will be doing that themselves when FH launches, as one of the boosters was previously used on a GTO mission.
The key is there isn't a long enough line of customers willing to re-fly, so the customer is the chooser, SpaceX is the beggar.Again, the same assertion without evidence. Then when challenged you say "it doesn't matter". If it doesn't matter why do you keep saying it?
...
I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.
In an ideal world there are no failures, but that's not the world SX lives in. So I say that's the worst case of fail because they are the core business of SX and would suggest SX had under designed the vehicle....
I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.
Which are the ones where you do want a failure?
SpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.How many other even partly reusable LV's are flying other than F9 at this time? Or what about "lowering launch prices to less than $1000/lb" ?
SpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.How many other even partly reusable LV's are flying other than F9 at this time? Or what about "lowering launch prices to less than $1000/lb" ?
I think this thread was always mis-named as customers don't pay "costs" they pay "prices" and while they have cut the "floor price" for medium launch it doesn't look like they are going to go on cutting it.
That's their choice, but it's prices that matter to customers, not costs.
Thread is properly named, because it's a huge bonus to SpaceX if they can charge the same or similar price but have lower costs. Otherwise reuse isn't very profitable.In an ideal world there are no failures, but that's not the world SX lives in. So I say that's the worst case of fail because they are the core business of SX and would suggest SX had under designed the vehicle....
I guess SX would like to fly out the earlier blocks on expendable maximum payload launches, but those would be GEO or GTO, just the ones where you don't want a failure.
Which are the ones where you do want a failure?
My apologies for not making that suitably explicit for you.SpaceX isn't a monopoly, not even close.How many other even partly reusable LV's are flying other than F9 at this time? Or what about "lowering launch prices to less than $1000/lb" ?
I think this thread was always mis-named as customers don't pay "costs" they pay "prices" and while they have cut the "floor price" for medium launch it doesn't look like they are going to go on cutting it.
That's their choice, but it's prices that matter to customers, not costs.
That said, it was always intended that this thread focus on discussing the impact of reuse on SpaceX and not on the industry in general (via launch prices, except as a secondary effect because lower costs allow a provider to remain profitable at lower prices).And the answer is "It depends."
The fact remains there is a cost for reusability progress and its in the failure rate of the vehicle. As long as there are people who feel the risk is not worth the lower price, and when they can choose which LV they use they will go with something with a longer continuous list of successful launches.
I'm quite aware of "bathtub" curves for infant mortality, along with the idea of "burn in" testing for electronics.
I don't understand that reasoning.
If anything the first use of something has the potential for "infant mortality", whereas the longer something is used the more dependable it's use is. I found this chart on Wikipedia that addresses this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve):
No doubt SpaceX has to understand when things will wear out, both for moving machinery and for structures, but they have done a lot of that work already.
Absent inclusion of confidence levels, I'm not sure that's a statistically valid statement.
The fact remains you can have an F9 (15+ flights from RTF) or an Ariane 5 (78+ flights from RTF). All we can really say (statistically) is that one has a < 1 in 78 chance of going bang and one has a < 1 in 15 chance of going bang.
All we can really say (statistically) is that one has a < 1 in 78 chance of going bang and one has a < 1 in 15 chance of going bang.
I don't understand that reasoning.
If anything the first use of something has the potential for "infant mortality", whereas the longer something is used the more dependable it's use is. I found this chart on Wikipedia that addresses this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve):
No doubt SpaceX has to understand when things will wear out, both for moving machinery and for structures, but they have done a lot of that work already.
Seems fatuous to claim that. We can say previous builds of it had a 1 in 8 (roughly) failure rate. This says nothing at all about the most current, and still less the Block 5 build.I'm merely pointing out that empirically that is what has happened.
Seems fatuous to claim that. We can say previous builds of it had a 1 in 8 (roughly) failure rate. This says nothing at all about the most current, and still less the Block 5 build.I'm merely pointing out that empirically that is what has happened.
Yes being able to inspect and measure actual damage (and conversely what parts are over built for their task) should improve reliability. We will see in the long term if it does, as we all hope it will.
I think this thread was always mis-named as customers don't pay "costs" they pay "prices" and while they have cut the "floor price" for medium launch it doesn't look like they are going to go on cutting it.
That's their choice, but it's prices that matter to customers, not costs.
The fact remains you can have an F9 (15+ flights from RTF) or an Ariane 5 (78+ flights from RTF). All we can really say (statistically) is that one has a < 1 in 78 chance of going bang and one has a < 1 in 15 chance of going bang.
Absent inclusion of confidence levels, I'm not sure that's a statistically valid statement.
The fact remains you can have an F9 (15+ flights from RTF) or an Ariane 5 (78+ flights from RTF). All we can really say (statistically) is that one has a < 1 in 78 chance of going bang and one has a < 1 in 15 chance of going bang.
The only F9 failure that occurred on the first stage is the loss of a Merlin 1C engine. That flight made orbit and the 1C engine is now out of service. From the point of view of the first stage, success rate for (primary) payloads is 100% and the first stage is 44/44. (I'm giving the first stage CRS-7).If they suspended launches pending the results of an investigation the next launch after that is a "return to flight." 15 is how far away the f9 is from the last time it failed badly enough to need an RTF.
So from the view of the booster, Ariane is 78+ from RTF, F9 S1 is 44+ from first flight.
And both second stages that failed were brand new, so I fail to see how their failures hurt the case for booster reuse.It doesn't. If anything it's exactly the place you would expect a design to fail. In the expendable parts you can't study on return.
You said "reflown boosters should be more reliable but that hasn't happened yet".
Yet it is the reusable part that hasn't caused loss of mission, while the expendable part has, twice. Whatever the true reliability of reuse is, it's performing better than expendable right now.
Given the craven misuse of statistics above, I'm going to join in and go with reflown boosters being 100% reliable.
Which is absolutely and incontrovertible true. According to the latest data....
No. Reuse is likely to reduce failure rate.
Being able to inspect your boosters after flight is a gigantic advantage to SpaceX that I do not think gets enough credit here. It allows your to retire low probability failure modes before they happen.True. Likewise you can assess actual damage versus expected damage and (over time) relax some of the margins you built into the design.
With an expendable booster, if you had a low probability (say 0.1%) failure mode that can't show up in tests, the only way to find it is to wait for it to happen. If you can inspect your boosters you are likely able to find the weak areas before they fail and fix the problem beforehand.
Re-usability will also increase cadence, which is a pathway to improved reliability itself. Part of the reason air travel is so safe is because we have thousands of flights a day, so even 1 in a million failure modes become visible in reasonable timeframes. That previously mentioned 0.1% failure mode on an expendable LV may never show up in a ~100 launch lifetime, but it's still there lurking under the surface... Nobody would fly an airplane with a 0.1% failure probability.Quite correct. LV safety records are another area that, when compared to all other transport systems, is phenomenally bad. :(
You said "reflown boosters should be more reliable but that hasn't happened yet".Which should come as no surprise.
Yet it is the reusable part that hasn't caused loss of mission, while the expendable part has, twice. Whatever the true reliability of reuse is, it's performing better than expendable right now.
You said "reflown boosters should be more reliable but that hasn't happened yet".Which should come as no surprise.
Yet it is the reusable part that hasn't caused loss of mission, while the expendable part has, twice. Whatever the true reliability of reuse is, it's performing better than expendable right now.
The Shuttle never failed in the orbiter. The failures in the mfg and/or design of the expendable parts destroyed them, the second failure being due to the "minor" redesign of the ET's spray on foam insulation being (in fact) not so minor. :(
The question is at what point does a semi reusable design become stable enough that the benefits of reuse in terms of reliability start to show themselves? Empirically the answer is "not yet."
I hate to sound callus but close does not count. The vehicle completed its mission and the part was either repaired or replaced, which is what you'd expect to be able to do on a reusable vehicle.
The Shuttle never had a LOM failure in the orbiter, but parts of the orbiter failed rather frequently. Some of them came pretty close to causing LOM.
[Karim Michel] Sabbagh [SES]: have seen launch costs for a 3.5-ton satellite go from more than $100M to closer to $60M now, and expect to drop to half that. #NewSpaceEurope
EU governments’ indecision on SpaceX challenge seen as threat to Ariane system’s survival
by Peter B. de Selding | Nov 27, 2017
United Launch Alliance thinks SpaceX’s reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage makes no economic sense unless each stage is used at least 10 times. Germany’s DLR disagrees, and says SpaceX’s new launch cadence puts it within reach of making reusability pay. [Attached slide Credit: ULA]
DLR’s analysis suggesting 20 - 25 flights per year are enough for significant savings.
I've seen discussion about this spread around multiple topics. Please kill this topic if there is already one but I couldn't find it on my phone browser.Yes. It's called BFR.
So there are various guesses but often vehicle price is guessed as 70% first stage, 30% upper stage. So initial impression is that flying reused booster can reduce launch cost by 70%. Of course that's not true, because there is refrubrishment cost, launch operation cost, payload integration cost etc. Still it sounds like if reusing 1st stage could reduce cost by about 50%. And we still are not talking about price as it makes no sense for Space X to reduce their profit from service provided so it is about cost reduction which is different from price reduction.
Let's assume that this 50% cost price is good enough to include price of stage if split among multiple launches so it's 50% cost reduction for all launches.
Is that the case? No. Because building stage is only part of it's cost. There is also R&D cost per stage which is independent from if stage is build or not. There are for sure people here who know how big part is this. But please keep in mind it's not development of Falcon9 cost. It's quite pernament cost of keeping engineering department in house. Which is used to improve technology continuesly. And I believe it's quite a cost. So Space X needs to earn enough by their services to pay for it. Since they are continuesly innovating this can be treated as kind of fixed cost indendent from if rockets are build or not. This cost could be reduced once tech is developed but nobody (except some imaginary investors and short sighted clients) really want Space X to be scalled down.
Finally there is keeping production line cost. Those are employees which are not hired by temporary work agency. Nobody want SpaceX to lose higly qualified work force.
So finally my reasoning is that reusing (in short term) saves very little. Some raw materials and outsorced parts, but those are not many.
What reusability allows is to use resurces currently engaged in building stages to be used for other purposes. If there is market increase some of those can be transferred to build more second stages. Now for the same operational cost there can be more launches and there ara real savings.
But if launch rate doesn't grow enough or SpaceX doesn't scale down there is only limited saving.
So assuming reusability is given and SpaceX won't scale down, which I believe are true assumtions, cost reduction allowed by this humongous achievement is dependent from demand side and can be very small if there is no increase in launch rate.
Space X has some backlog so some increase is possible. But how big is that?
And am I missing something? Maybe raw materials and outsorced parts are really costly? Or my reasoning is flawed?
Elon said that each drone recovery costs a couple of million dollars,
Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward. He cautioned though that SpaceX has lots of fixed costs, its future Starlink satellite internet constellation and development of the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) that require revenue from launches, meaning prices can only go so low. Ocean recoveries, which require sending drone ships out to sea for landing Falcon 9 first stages, also cost “a few million dollars,” he said.
Not expecting a B1048.5:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098771535588777986QuoteHigh probability of this particular rocket getting destroyed by Dragon supersonic abort test. Otherwise, at least 20 or 30 missions for Falcon 9. Starship will take over before the F9 fleet reaches end of life.
If you want to look at the current Falcon Heavy as a strong bit of evidence, what I can say for sure is that the three new boosters (prob four, actually) went from nothing to completed and in FL in less than 12 months. Prob more like 6-9, given production of B1046-B1051 & B1054
Now that doesn't necessarily translate into "lead time" per se, but it gives a good idea. SpaceX is actually allowing production workforce to cut weeks to 40 hours (!!!) because they're finishing everything on Friday and have nothing to do on Sat.
Which is to say that Block 5's reusability has produced more than a little slack in the Falcon production system. Priority production could probably be expedited immediately with minimal impact to the launch business, much like the latest FH was effectively built all at once.
Experience with F9R is consistent with what Stéphane Israël CEO of Arianespace said five years ago. That any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per year and market for this can be only in big countries like USA or China, but not in EU.
You don't know if it is canard/rumor. S.Israel knows very well how to predict, how high refurbishment costs and overall fixed costs will any partially or fully reusable rockets have and how high flight rates they will need to have some significant cost savings. You don't know even SpaceX own F9R data about this.Experience with F9R is consistent with what Stéphane Israël CEO of Arianespace said five years ago. That any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per year and market for this can be only in big countries like USA or China, but not in EU.
He's welcome to that view, and maybe it applies to him but it pretty clearly does not apply to SpaceX. This canard about high flight rates just won't go away.
You don't know if it is canard/rumor.We do know that Arianespace, somewhat like ULA, is fighting to retain its market share. His opinion is that it would need that flight rate.
S.Israel knows very well how to predict, how high refurbishment costs and overall fixed costs will any partially or fully reusable rockets have and how high flight rates they will need to have some significant cost savings. You don't know even SpaceX own F9R data about this.He can make a prediction, as can anyone else.
SpaceX first price for comsat. was about 4200 $ per kilogram to LEO. Now it is about 5000 $ per kilogram to LEO (more than twice to GTO).Completely wrong. Payload capacity has increased from less than 11 tons to LEO (before reuse developed) to a demonstrated 16 tons to LEO reusable. The nominal price for a falcon 9 has dropped from ~$60 million to ~$50 million. That shows <$3200 per kg to LEO. SpaceX bid around $40 million for the IXPE launch (we got to see the breakdown for a change, the total cost to NASA is closer to $50 million from paperwork and such, the $40 million is what should be compared to a commercial launch price)
They throw away 6-8 cores, bc payload was too heavy, some even after FH debut, so F9,F9R cost must be similar.Your logic doesn't work when contracts were signed before reuse was demonstrated, and customers had no obligation to accept modifications. They were making profit on the expendable missions anyway, so this does not support your claim that they don't make significantly more profit with reuse.
S.Israel knows very well how to predict, how high refurbishment costs and overall fixed costs will any partially or fully reusable rockets
S.Israel knows very well how to predict, how high refurbishment costs and overall fixed costs will any partially or fully reusable rockets have and how high flight rates they will need to have some significant cost savings. You don't know even SpaceX own F9R data about this.Highly doubtful.
Experience with F9R is consistent with ....
He is probably correct for Arianespace, Ariane 5 uses an 2.5 stages setup with SRB, this is very popular as its very efficient for han heavy lift rocket, especially for GTO. However its not suitable for reuse as core will be fly very fast at burnout, even worse than Atlas as the SRB are larger and upper stage is smaller.Experience with F9R is consistent with what Stéphane Israël CEO of Arianespace said five years ago. That any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per year and market for this can be only in big countries like USA or China, but not in EU.
He's welcome to that view, and maybe it applies to him but it pretty clearly does not apply to SpaceX. This canard about high flight rates just won't go away.
[...] any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per yearHow can this possibly be true? Suppose you build one booster, and re-use it once, the minimum possible re-use. Where would the money go to make this as expensive as two boosters? SpaceX has turned several boosters around in 3 months. If they had 100 people, full time, working on inspection and refurbishment, that's still only 25 person-years. If this costs $150,000 US per employee per year, that's only $3.75 million dollars, far below the cost of a new booster. This savings is available even on the second flight.
[...] any significant cost savings of 1st booster reuse, can be achieved only with high flight rates about 40,50 flights per yearHow can this possibly be true?
It's not. It's really best not to engage. It's not a serious articulation of anything. There's a long series of unstated counterfactural premises on which the contention is based that have nothing to do with the reality at SX. You are going to have to think along the lines of profit margins, discounted ROI on developement expense, irrelevent statistics like $/capacity-kg, and assumptions of unnecessary price-reductions.
Could you explain where you think the money goes, if you cannot save money on the second launch of the same booster?
The example in the Figure plots the flight rate per year which a reusable system must attain in order to
pass hurdle rates of 20% and 30%. The assumed time horizon is 10 years, with 5 years of development
followed by 5 years of revenue-generating operations. The assumed ROS (profit margins) are 25% and
15% on an assumed price per flight of $80M for each of the 20% and 30% scenarios. Total investment is
assumed to range from $500M to $2B. As can be seen in the Figure, the number of flights required for
the investment to be deemed “worth it” ranges from 15 to 18 per year for the most favorable set of
assumed circumstances ($500M investment, 20% hurdle rate and 25% ROS) to over 100 flights per year
for the least favorable ($2B investment, 30% hurdle rate and 15% ROS). The most flights flown by a single
ETO system in 2015 was 17 by the Chinese Long March family of expendable systems and 16 by the Russian
family of Soyuz expendable systems (see Figure 6). Accordingly, for a reusable system to be found worthy
of investment within even the most favorable assumptions of the example, the system would have to
enter the competitive market with a flight rate essentially matching the current market share leaders and
an investment at a level historically associated with prototype systems.
Could you explain where you think the money goes, if you cannot save money on the second launch of the same booster?
There're definitely ways to justify the 50 flights per year conclusion if you play with assumptions, here's an example: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160013370.pdfQuoteThe example in the Figure plots the flight rate per year which a reusable system must attain in order to
pass hurdle rates of 20% and 30%. The assumed time horizon is 10 years, with 5 years of development
followed by 5 years of revenue-generating operations. The assumed ROS (profit margins) are 25% and
15% on an assumed price per flight of $80M for each of the 20% and 30% scenarios. Total investment is
assumed to range from $500M to $2B. As can be seen in the Figure, the number of flights required for
the investment to be deemed “worth it” ranges from 15 to 18 per year for the most favorable set of
assumed circumstances ($500M investment, 20% hurdle rate and 25% ROS) to over 100 flights per year
for the least favorable ($2B investment, 30% hurdle rate and 15% ROS). The most flights flown by a single
ETO system in 2015 was 17 by the Chinese Long March family of expendable systems and 16 by the Russian
family of Soyuz expendable systems (see Figure 6). Accordingly, for a reusable system to be found worthy
of investment within even the most favorable assumptions of the example, the system would have to
enter the competitive market with a flight rate essentially matching the current market share leaders and
an investment at a level historically associated with prototype systems.
Basically you can get high flight rate requirement if you assume:
1. Need to pay back investment in a fairly short time
2. The investment has to generate significant amount of return to offset the risk
I'm not a finance person, as I understand it, the "hurdle rate" is the annual return from investment, adjusted for risk. Setting a high hurdle rate would really hurt the economic case of reusability, and how high this rate goes is sort of a value judgement, essentially the people arguing they need 50 flights per year is saying: While reusability can save money, the money saved at lower flight rate is not enough to justify the risk of development, I'd rather invest the money in other ventures (for example S&P 500 returns 10% per year or so).
Maybe i’m remembering wrong, but did Ariane not also have the requirement of not cutting any jobs? If you need to retain your full workforce then the only way that reusability saves you money is if the same workforce now allows you to launch more rockets - hence increased flight rate.That's quite a bold claim. Where did you see it?
Because the alternative - same flight rate with smaller workforce due to reusability - is unpalatable to them.
That’s not a weakness of reusability, it is a weakness of the politics behind their organisation.
It's not. It's really best not to engage. It's not a serious articulation of anything. There's a long series of unstated counterfactural premises on which the contention is based that have nothing to do with the reality at SX.I can certainly understand your PoV.
You are going to have to think along the lines of profit margins, discounted ROI on developement expense, irrelevent statistics like $/capacity-kg, and assumptions of unnecessary price-reductions.Except if you don't have a billionaire angel investor those "irrelevent" statistics become quite important if you want to raise funds for a design.
It's not exactly that this couldn't be an interesting discussion worth pursuing but just that it's obvious in this case it won't be when particluar folks with hobby-horses start hand-waving about how SX is doing it all wrong.Fair point.
That's my advice FWIW. Y'all can try if you want but that will be my last on those silly criticisms of reuse.
The exact assumptions you design to matter.
They shape your world view as to what is possible and what is not possible. Likewise the organizational environment you operate in allows some freedoms and constrains others, again shaping what you think is possible and impossible.
Once you know this background you can see how Musk, Bruno and Israel can make the statements they do. They can all be right WRT to the context each is operating in.
In either case, you need engines that work and are cheap enough, and I think that may mean you need to make your own engines; if you buy them the economic incentives are all wrong as your engine builder wants to sell you engines that are as expensive as possible. I think it's no coincidence that the two companies either doing or planning propulsive landing make their own engines.
I agree that this doesn't work for the ULA approach of a small launcher that is augmented with expensive SRBs to cover the target market, which I think brings us back to engines again; for something like Vulcan you could upsize the rocket and add engines, but that bumps up your engine cost for all of your flights.
WRT to the thread title can we agree?
1) Re-usability can benefit in lower costs.
2) Key high level design decisions can make gaining those benefits very hard.
3) Retro fitting reuse to a nearly complete design is virtually impossible.
4) Given the scale of those benefits it is very unlikely that any new LV (starting now) would not include at least booster reuse in its business plan and factor that into its engineering development plan to ensure that could be achieved.
4) Vulcan is arguably a counter-example to this; what SpaceX was doing was pretty clear to ULA and they've chosen to go with what is at best a poorly-reusable design. Though you can argue that Vulcan is only designed for NSSL and not to be commercially competitive.
4) Vulcan is arguably a counter-example to this; what SpaceX was doing was pretty clear to ULA and they've chosen to go with what is at best a poorly-reusable design. Though you can argue that Vulcan is only designed for NSSL and not to be commercially competitive.Actually debatable. It all depends on when ULA started developing the-LV-to-be-known-as-Vulcan Vs where SX was at with stage recovery.
Blue have luxury of owner with very deep pockets who does need a RTOI anytime soon, if ever.
ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
LM and Boeing have been burnt before developing LVs for market that didn't happen, which is how we ended up with ULA. They won't build a RLV unless there is proven launch market to justify large outlay required. If Blue and SpaceX RLVs can help create that market then all better. Being late to party can work in their favor, as there will be large pool of RLV expertise to hire from if they do develop an RLV.ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
What you need to realize is that ULA's relationship to its parents is surprisingly like that of a state owned business to its government.
Yes the government has vast resources it could put into such a business.
But what has tended to happen is that they have been run as instruments of social policy (like train services) or as "cash cows" to put money into the countries Treasury (like coal, oil and gas companies), potentially avoiding raising higher direct taxes to citizens.
The parents attitude to ULA seems to be IMHO "Yeah, we hear the odd bleat about our prices but we tell them (our customers) that's the price for a 100% track record and they shut right up."
No they don't want to invest in reusability. No they won't invest in reusability until their main customer (the USG) asks them to (and by that I mean puts some money on the table).
Look at the corporate structures of Boeing, LM, SNC and SX.
Now look at which ones have pushed hardest for innovation and delivered
It's not the publicly traded joint stock ones. :( In fact they look like the ones that have fought hardest to preserve BAU with BAU pricing.
They won't build a RLV unless there is proven launch market to justify large outlay required.Wrong.
They won't build a RLV unless there is proven launch market to justify large outlay required.Wrong.
They won't build anything unless there is a big USG support contract in there first.
ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
What you need to realize is that ULA's relationship to its parents is surprisingly like that of a state owned business to its government.
Yes the government has vast resources it could put into such a business.
NG has LV expertise just need the engines.ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
What you need to realize is that ULA's relationship to its parents is surprisingly like that of a state owned business to its government.
Yes the government has vast resources it could put into such a business.
Quite aware of how ULA is structured, and my point was that ULA doesn't lack the access to sufficient funds in order to develop their own reusable launch vehicle. ULA's parents have made the calculation that they can better profit from being limited to pretty much U.S. Government only high-end launch services.
Which is low risk for them, since they already own that market, and we should have no doubt that overall it is very profitable for them.
But since they are not the first mover in reusable launch vehicles, for them to get into the market they would be competing in what could be a very competitive commercial market, and that is NOT something that Lockheed Martin or Boeing excel at. Sure, Boeing sells commercial aircraft, but they only do that in a mature market, not an emerging one like reusable launch vehicles, and Boeing has no current expertise on being 3rd or 4th entering a market.
Usually when large companies want to enter new markets they buy an existing company that has a presence in the market and the expertise to grow the market given more resources. That is what Northrop Grumman has done with Orbital ATK, and it would not surprise me if Northrop Grumman makes a play for ULA at some point in the future.
FYI, I know someone that is a worker at Northrop Grumman (NG), who has no special knowledge about their launch division. But they said it is common knowledge within the company that NG wants to expand their presence in the launch business, and they even said NG would want to buy SpaceX. Obviously that unlikely to happen, but to me that tells me that employees within NG are excited about the possibilities. Please take this as one data point, not a trend, but the person I know knew nothing about the launch business, and I was quite surprised by the depth of the conversation.
NG has LV expertise just need the engines.
They could buy one of new small LV companies and grow their engine development team.
Alternatively buy off shelf engines eg Be4 or AR1.
AJR tried buying ULA and failed now partnering with Firefly..
ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
What you need to realize is that ULA's relationship to its parents is surprisingly like that of a state owned business to its government.
Yes the government has vast resources it could put into such a business.
Quite aware of how ULA is structured, and my point was that ULA doesn't lack the access to sufficient funds in order to develop their own reusable launch vehicle. ULA's parents have made the calculation that they can better profit from being limited to pretty much U.S. Government only high-end launch services.
Which is low risk for them, since they already own that market, and we should have no doubt that overall it is very profitable for them.
But since they are not the first mover in reusable launch vehicles, for them to get into the market they would be competing in what could be a very competitive commercial market, and that is NOT something that Lockheed Martin or Boeing excel at. Sure, Boeing sells commercial aircraft, but they only do that in a mature market, not an emerging one like reusable launch vehicles, and Boeing has no current expertise on being 3rd or 4th entering a market.
Usually when large companies want to enter new markets they buy an existing company that has a presence in the market and the expertise to grow the market given more resources. That is what Northrop Grumman has done with Orbital ATK, and it would not surprise me if Northrop Grumman makes a play for ULA at some point in the future.
FYI, I know someone that is a worker at Northrop Grumman (NG), who has no special knowledge about their launch division. But they said it is common knowledge within the company that NG wants to expand their presence in the launch business, and they even said NG would want to buy SpaceX. Obviously that unlikely to happen, but to me that tells me that employees within NG are excited about the possibilities. Please take this as one data point, not a trend, but the person I know knew nothing about the launch business, and I was quite surprised by the depth of the conversation.
Any new entrant in the reusable launch vehicle market doesn't have to start from scratch, they can learn from what SpaceX and Blue Origin have done and are doing. But engine development is the key, everything else about the rocket is more achievable once you have the engine.Quite true. As RL did and Isar are doing by the looks of things.
Only way to dramatically improve engine designs and RLV performance is to reduce LOX mass. Air breathing engines is one way ie Reaction Engines. The other is using external power source eg nuclear, beamed power.Any new entrant in the reusable launch vehicle market doesn't have to start from scratch, they can learn from what SpaceX and Blue Origin have done and are doing. But engine development is the key, everything else about the rocket is more achievable once you have the engine.Quite true. As RL did and Isar are doing by the looks of things.
But higher Isp let's you afford more robust structures and allows you to look at other shapes than the super efficient (but super fragile) "soda can" architecture.
Pure rocket engines have very well defined limits on their performance. They were the only tool to reach orbit in 1956.
Only way to dramatically improve engine designs and RLV performance is to reduce LOX mass. Air breathing engines is one way ie Reaction Engines. The other is using external power source eg nuclear, beamed power.True.
In near term its current engines using LOX + LH or RP1 or Methane with slight improvements in ISP and weight reduction.Well using a strained ring HC instead of Methane could add a few secs to the Isp. Likewise the target for pumps based on microfabrication technology was a T/W of 1000:1. This was never achieved but it still seems possible.
There is lot that can be done to lower operational costs of RLVs, no short cuts here its just incremental improvements over time.Bearing in mind there are no fully RLV's in existence. The F9 booster is a semi- reusable system
This is where small LVs have an advantage, quicker and cheaper to apply these incremental improvements.Provided they can get to a launching a full RLV in the first place.
1. Lithium/Florine/Hydrogen will yield an ISP of 542. This is really a mute point because it is so dangerous to use and to build a practical launch vehicle.
ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who collectively generated over $150B in revenue in 2018. They have plenty of money to invest in reusability.
What you need to realize is that ULA's relationship to its parents is surprisingly like that of a state owned business to its government.
Yes the government has vast resources it could put into such a business.
Quite aware of how ULA is structured, and my point was that ULA doesn't lack the access to sufficient funds in order to develop their own reusable launch vehicle. ULA's parents have made the calculation that they can better profit from being limited to pretty much U.S. Government only high-end launch services.
Which is low risk for them, since they already own that market, and we should have no doubt that overall it is very profitable for them.
But since they are not the first mover in reusable launch vehicles, for them to get into the market they would be competing in what could be a very competitive commercial market, and that is NOT something that Lockheed Martin or Boeing excel at. Sure, Boeing sells commercial aircraft, but they only do that in a mature market, not an emerging one like reusable launch vehicles, and Boeing has no current expertise on being 3rd or 4th entering a market.
Usually when large companies want to enter new markets they buy an existing company that has a presence in the market and the expertise to grow the market given more resources. That is what Northrop Grumman has done with Orbital ATK, and it would not surprise me if Northrop Grumman makes a play for ULA at some point in the future.
FYI, I know someone that is a worker at Northrop Grumman (NG), who has no special knowledge about their launch division. But they said it is common knowledge within the company that NG wants to expand their presence in the launch business, and they even said NG would want to buy SpaceX. Obviously that unlikely to happen, but to me that tells me that employees within NG are excited about the possibilities. Please take this as one data point, not a trend, but the person I know knew nothing about the launch business, and I was quite surprised by the depth of the conversation.
Thank goodness that the sale of SX to NG is very unlikely to happen. The sale of SX to any public company in the very long term would destroy the innovation, progress and investment we are witnessing today.
NG's willingness to buy SpaceX also shows that NG utterly and completely fails to understand why SpaceX even exists.
NG is thinking: SpaceX will ad to our portfolio so we can make even more money for our shareholders.
SpaceX is thinking: Mars or bust.
You can't have a more fundamentally different attitude towards being present in the aerospace industry.
Which is why SpaceX is leading in reusability efforts and all the rest is either failing of extremely slow to follow.
it is not clear that fully reusable rockets will ultimately be successful, but if they are then that will change the launch market completely.
And when the NG worker made that comment, I laughed... ;)
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded. History knows of plenety of fully resusable rockets that did not come to fruition: X-30, Delta Cliper, Roton. Reusability is not a magic.
The reason rarbg.com I imagine that fully reusable rockets will be ultimately successful is observing the track record and stated intentions of SX.
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded. History knows of plenety of fully resusable rockets that did not come to fruition: X-30, Delta Cliper, Roton. Reusability is not a magic.
Those examples only show that developing reusable rockets is more expensive and more technically difficult than a comparable expendable rocket (which is shocking, right? :D ). Because they failed in development, they say nothing about operational costs.Correct.
it is not clear that fully reusable rockets will ultimately be successful, but if they are then that will change the launch market completely.
And when the NG worker made that comment, I laughed... ;)
If I read this correctly, this quote was the NG guy talking, right?
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded. History knows of plenety of fully resusable rockets that did not come to fruition: X-30, Delta Cliper, Roton. Reusability is not a magic.
Those examples only show that developing reusable rockets is more expensive and more technically difficult than a comparable expendable rocket (which is shocking, right? :D ). Because they failed in development, they say nothing about operational costs.Correct.
There are expectations it is impossible to develop a full RLV for the same price as VTO TSTO ELV.
What if they are wrong as well?
I was making the comment that it's not yet clear that reusable rocket will ultimately be successful, though count me as a 100% supporter of the concept and Elon Musk's engineering abilities. But we haven't reached proof of concept yet for fully reusable rockets, and there is always the (hopefully slim) possibility that something will stop SpaceX from getting to that proof of concept.
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded. History knows of plenety of fully resusable rockets that did not come to fruition: X-30, Delta Cliper, Roton. Reusability is not a magic.
Those examples only show that developing reusable rockets is more expensive and more technically difficult than a comparable expendable rocket (which is shocking, right? :D ). Because they failed in development, they say nothing about operational costs.
A reusable Stage 2 hasn't been built yet, but:
* The shuttle and X-37B shows reusability up to and down from orbit.
* Engines are demonstrated by F9 and shuttle
A reusable Stage 2 hasn't been built yet, but:
* The shuttle and X-37B shows reusability up to and down from orbit.
* Engines are demonstrated by F9 and shuttle
X-37B is just a payload that can return. Shuttle Orbiter was a payload + engines that could return. So those are really demonstrations of reusable reentry vehicles. It's not clear how reusable the X-37B is, but the orbiter was more "rebuildable" than "reusable" for both the orbiter itself and the engines.
The orbiter also cheats pretty significantly by stuff all of its propellant in the external tank.
I don't see any "laws of physics" reasons you can't build a reusable orbital stage, but the engineering challenges are significant and there's can be a huge gap between "feasible", "practical", and "economical". The shuttle was feasible, but it wasn't really practical and it was far from economical. I feel similarly about Skylon; it looks "feasible", but I'm skeptical about practical or economical.
I do think that SpaceX is taking a reasonable approach with Starship development and it certainly seems feasible, and given their history with Falcon 9, I willing to perhaps grant "practical", but "economical" is going to have to wait for actual orbital flights.
I was making the comment that it's not yet clear that reusable rocket will ultimately be successful, though count me as a 100% supporter of the concept and Elon Musk's engineering abilities. But we haven't reached proof of concept yet for fully reusable rockets, and there is always the (hopefully slim) possibility that something will stop SpaceX from getting to that proof of concept.
Out of curiosity, what part of a fully reusable rocket do you think hasn't been demonstrated at the proof of concept level?
IMHO, stage 1 is well demonstrated by Falcon 9.
A reusable Stage 2 hasn't been built yet, but:
* The shuttle and X-37B shows reusability up to and down from orbit.
* Engines are demonstrated by F9 and shuttle
For startup RLV is too big a step for first LV,Perhaps you should prefix that with an "IMHO"?
They are better off cutting their teeth on ELV and prove themselves. Delivering payloads reliabily to space is first priority of a launch company.It's fascinating to what people "discover" these apparent "laws of nature" once a single company demonstrates at least one path that can work. :)
In case of SpaceX F9 if a ELV is done right it can still evolve into RLV that can help refine RLV systems. Then develop clean sheet design which will contain lot of flight proven systems.
X-37B is just a payload that can return. Shuttle Orbiter was a payload + engines that could return.Shuttle was the US. The SRB's were the boosters.
So those are really demonstrations of reusable reentry vehicles. It's not clear how reusable the X-37B is, but the orbiter was more "rebuildable" than "reusable" for both the orbiter itself and the engines.Shuttle was the only vehicle that
The orbiter also cheats pretty significantly by stuff all of its propellant in the external tank.All "launch assist" devices are means to "cheat" the limitations of straight rocket cycles.
I don't see any "laws of physics" reasons you can't build a reusable orbital stage, but the engineering challenges are significant and there's can be a huge gap between "feasible", "practical", and "economical". The shuttle was feasible, but it wasn't really practical and it was far from economical.It all depends on exactly what assumptions start with. Since so many people who discuss this don't even realize they have such assumptions to begin with they come to irrational conclusions.
I feel similarly about Skylon; it looks "feasible", but I'm skeptical about practical or economical.A vehicle that can be used for 200 uses and be bought and sold like any normal transportation system is indeed so far outside the understanding of most people steeped in ELV's I can understand why they wouldn't think it practical.
I do think that SpaceX is taking a reasonable approach with Starship development and it certainly seems feasible, and given their history with Falcon 9, I willing to perhaps grant "practical", but "economical" is going to have to wait for actual orbital flights.Sooner or later we'll find out.
BUT, once demonstrated, I think the "genie is out of the bottle", and more and more companies and entities will pursue it. But getting to the first successful demonstration is the challenge we're watching in real time today.An observation that could be made about several LV technologies.
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded.
I can't imagine how fully reusable rockets can be anything but ultimately successful.
Fully reusable Kistler K-1 failed, while it's main competitors - expendable F9 1.0 and Antares succeeded.
Kistler K-1 failed, but it wasn't really a competitor to Falcon 9 and Antares. Nearly all the work on Kistler K-1 was done in the 1990s, long before Falcon 9 or Antares existed. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on it in the 1990s.
The K-1 that got a COTS grant was Rocketplane Kistler's claim that they were reviving the K-1 program. They never really got any serious amount of the private financing that they needed, so they lost their COTS award without doing much.
Really, lots and lots of private attempts to create new launch vehicles failed, both for reusable and expendable vehicles. This is not really evidence that reusable vehicles can't lower costs so much as it's evidence that creating a new launch vehicle of any kind is really, really expensive and investors haven't been willing to pour enough money into most of the new launch vehicle programs to see how they would fare operationally.
Really, lots and lots of private attempts to create new launch vehicles failed, both for reusable and expendable vehicles. This is not really evidence that reusable vehicles can't lower costs so much as it's evidence that creating a new launch vehicle of any kind is really, really expensive and investors haven't been willing to pour enough money into most of the new launch vehicle programs to see how they would fare operationally.
Here's the thing though and the genius of Elon Musk in all his endeavors. Relentless iteration.
SpaceX had to win customers, provide a service and develop capabilities on those funds or on residual assets, like a spent booster.
What we are seeing too is that the more they fly the faster they get better.
Which is only possible if your customers are OK with their flights incorporating some level of testing - and so far SpaceX customers have been VERY accommodating.
Which is only possible if your customers are OK with their flights incorporating some level of testing - and so far SpaceX customers have been VERY accommodating.
Which brings up one of the deficiencies of the ULA reusability analysis; their paper focuses on $/kg as the meaningful metric for cost.
But SpaceX has demonstrated very clearly that if your rocket is reliable and can put a payload into a specific orbit, the customers don't care at all what happens after that; you can use any extra margin to do whatever you want.
Though to be fair, that only works if you have a base launcher that is oversized; if your design uses SRBs you would have to pay extra to generate that margin.
Which brings up one of the deficiencies of the ULA reusability analysis; their paper focuses on $/kg as the meaningful metric for cost.
Not sure about that, since Falcon 9 beats everyone on a $/kg basis. Maybe you meant gross payload to orbit?
need the reusable version of Falcon 9, and a smaller percentage require the expendable version.
Which brings up one of the deficiencies of the ULA reusability analysis; their paper focuses on $/kg as the meaningful metric for cost.
Not sure about that, since Falcon 9 beats everyone on a $/kg basis. Maybe you meant gross payload to orbit?
need the reusable version of Falcon 9, and a smaller percentage require the expendable version.
I'll try to be clearer...
The ULA paper https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/supporting-technologies/launch-vehicle-recovery-and-reuse-(aiaa-space-2015).pdf (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/supporting-technologies/launch-vehicle-recovery-and-reuse-(aiaa-space-2015).pdf) says this:
...
I am by no means a rocket expert, but this analysis is very obviously flawed. Customers do not buy launches based on $/Kg and with a liquid-fueled rocket, lighter payloads do not cost less than heavier ones (SRBs change that), so for the class of payloads that have enough margin, there is no performance cost of booster fly back and therefore the analysis is wrong.
Then the question just becomes one of market coverage or launcher sizing; you want your reusable solution to cover the bulk of the market so that you get the benefits of reuse most of the time. Which Falcon 9 Block 5 does.
My guess is F9 expendable will be very rare going forward on all contracts signed 2019 and later... ;)While customer may plan to use FH they would design payload to be launch by choice of launchers.
FH for about the same price... two ASDS's and soon three landing pads coming online in FL...
So all the possible FH missions and payloads from lightest (3 cores all RTLS) and up can be flown and now bid for...
Obviously (to me) the payload designers have figured out F9R today is best suited for about 7 tonnes max to GTO with ~2400 m/s delta V of included payload's own booster ability to finish getting it to GSO.
(reference the several ~2000+ remaining DV launches for SSL and now Boeing flown)
What we need to watch for now... ???
....is who is designing a payload today... to take advantage of a FH flight with 3 cores recovered (in one of several known ways and places) and the fairings also recovered...
It's published @SpaceX that sides RTLS and center on ASDS is 8 tonnes... for $90mil
My guess, is using the same trick (more Delta V on Sat) then the 1800 m/s "standard"... ::)
That ~10 tonnes to GTO-2400 on FH for $90mil US is just one of many price points available to designers...
And up to 26+ tonnes to GTO is available for those with deeper pockets if needed... (FH expended)
In summary...
The market is not dumb... they will figure out how to take full advantage of FH (and it's price points) given a few years...
AND IMHO... F9R expendable will be rare (ASDS/weather issues may force losses)
Agreed... in fact I went back and added the following to my above quoted post... while you were postingMy guess is F9 expendable will be very rare going forward on all contracts signed 2019 and later... ;)While customer may plan to use FH they would design payload to be launch by choice of launchers.
FH for about the same price... two ASDS's and soon three landing pads coming online in FL...
So all the possible FH missions and payloads from lightest (3 cores all RTLS) and up can be flown and now bid for...
Obviously (to me) the payload designers have figured out F9R today is best suited for about 7 tonnes max to GTO with ~2400 m/s delta V of included payload's own booster ability to finish getting it to GSO.
(reference the several ~2000+ remaining DV launches for SSL and now Boeing flown)
What we need to watch for now... ???
....is who is designing a payload today... to take advantage of a FH flight with 3 cores recovered (in one of several known ways and places) and the fairings also recovered...
It's published @SpaceX that sides RTLS and center on ASDS is 8 tonnes... for $90mil
My guess, is using the same trick (more Delta V on Sat) then the 1800 m/s "standard"... ::)
That ~10 tonnes to GTO-2400 on FH for $90mil US is just one of many price points available to designers...
And up to 26+ tonnes to GTO is available for those with deeper pockets if needed... (FH expended)
In summary...
The market is not dumb... they will figure out how to take full advantage of FH (and it's price points) given a few years...
AND IMHO... F9R expendable will be rare (ASDS/weather issues may force losses)
SO... SpaceX should be able to bid on and underbid all other launch providers for any payload and mission they offer currently.The market AND the US government will keep more then one provider in business...
Vulcan, A6, Omega... they all are obsolete before they fly, based solely on cost and price IMHO...
And the F9 system is rapidly about to pass all others flying today, on number of reliable and successful flights in a row to date...
:o
Now.. I will add that the US needs more then one provider flying to assure access to space...
SpaceX and who else will be left standing... THAT is the question... ;)
If you look at how many launches FHR has and is likely to do annually its a very expensive RLV to develop for very few missions. Without F9 it wouldn't have been worth developing.
Besides the hardware, what people need to realize is the business model that SpaceX has used is just as innovative. How many companies (besides Tesla) are doing tests on the customer dime.Not really.
Which is only possible if your customers are OK with their flights incorporating some level of testing - and so far SpaceX customers have been VERY accommodating.They have been very lucky in this regard but they are not alone as an LV mfg in doing this.
But SpaceX has demonstrated very clearly that if your rocket is reliable and can put a payload into a specific orbit, the customers don't care at all what happens after that; you can use any extra margin to do whatever you want.Correct
Though to be fair, that only works if you have a base launcher that is oversized; if your design uses SRBs you would have to pay extra to generate that margin.Which is the exact point of their analysis. That F9 is so much bigger than it needs to be.
The key is not to try and build a rocket that does everything, since the broader the capability the less efficient you become. That is why picking the sweet spot was so important for SpaceX.WRT to this thread title the same could (should) be said of any LV that wants to raise anything close to commercial finance.
If you look at how many launches FHR has and is likely to do annually its a very expensive RLV to develop for very few missions. Without F9 it wouldn't have been worth developing.
If you look at how many launches FHR has and is likely to do annually its a very expensive RLV to develop for very few missions. Without F9 it wouldn't have been worth developing.
In my mind FH was "plan B"; when they were first launching F9V1.0, they really couldn't cover the market that they wanted to cover and FH was one way to do that.
And then they were wildly successful in uprating Merlin, going to subchilled prop, and expanding F9, and that gave the FT variant the ability to do lots of missions that would have required FH otherwise. And pushed FH up into a very high payload range.
It's not actually clear to me that it was worth developing at all and we know that Musk wanted to cancel it multiple times.
That analysis makes sense as far as it goes. If you want venture capital types of returns (30%) over a short amount of time, you'll need lots of launches. Or alternatively, if it costs you $2B to develop, but saves only $10M per mission, it takes you at least 200 flights to make your money back.Could you explain where you think the money goes, if you cannot save money on the second launch of the same booster?
There're definitely ways to justify the 50 flights per year conclusion if you play with assumptions, here's an example: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160013370.pdf
[...]
Basically you can get high flight rate requirement if you assume:
1. Need to pay back investment in a fairly short time
2. The investment has to generate significant amount of return to offset the risk
Besides the hardware, what people need to realize is the business model that SpaceX has used is just as innovative. How many companies (besides Tesla) are doing tests on the customer dime.Not really.
Look under the surface of any modern complex product (especially one that has a spare parts market around it or gets software updates) and you are likely to fine there have been multiple versions of the design, wheather the customer was aware of them or not. Those changes were either to fix deficiencies in the original design, lower the cost of mfg for the supplier or (possibly) trial elements in some for that they want to include in later models.
Quote from: Coastal RonWhich is only possible if your customers are OK with their flights incorporating some level of testing - and so far SpaceX customers have been VERY accommodating.They have been very lucky in this regard but they are not alone as an LV mfg in doing this.
If you look at how many launches FHR has and is likely to do annually its a very expensive RLV to develop for very few missions. Without F9 it wouldn't have been worth developing.
What SpaceX does is significantly different than pretty much everyone else. Also, most products are sold, whereas SpaceX offers a service, and it is very difficult to run experiments on a product a customer has bought AND get reliable feedback. Tesla can only do it because EVERY Tesla car is online and Tesla monitors and adjusts the software of each car. They are the exception, not the rule.I would have said that since it is a service SX sell (you cannot buy and launch an F9 yourself, just like every current ELV or semi ELV) collecting whatever data they wanted is quite straightforward.
Starting in the early days of Falcon 9 SpaceX was running specific experiments with every launch, some very significant. I don't know any other aerospace company that has done the same.Nor do it. But it's what you should be doing if you have a longer term goal and you need to learn a great deal about it before proceeding. I don't know what the issues of re-starting a rocket engine in hypersonic flow are but SX do. They solved that problem years ago and provide NASA with enough data for them to radically lower the budget they were planning to commit to find out that information.
Which is only possible if your customers are OK with their flights incorporating some level of testing - and so far SpaceX customers have been VERY accommodating.True. But note also it is always after performance of core duties of the stage. That is a common theme of such testing.
It is the scale that they do it. SpaceX is not tinkering around the edges, they are going beyond the performance envelope and are OK with failure. Unfortunately that is not the culture that exists at "Old Space" companies.
Cnes Future Launcher Roadmap - Ariane Next the European Falcon 9 in 2030 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49940.0) thread has a presentation from CNES about future launcher roadmap, slide 31 has an estimate of refurbishments costs (I assume the estimate is performed by CNES): "A refursbished stage costs between 6% and 40% of a new one"ULA will also be including development costs in that "break even". CNES don't state what development costs are, which are separate from refurbishment.
This sounds reasonable to me, much more honest than ULA's lines (need 10 reuses to break even)
Cnes Future Launcher Roadmap - Ariane Next the European Falcon 9 in 2030 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49940.0) thread has a presentation from CNES about future launcher roadmap, slide 31 has an estimate of refurbishments costs (I assume the estimate is performed by CNES): "A refursbished stage costs between 6% and 40% of a new one"ULA will also be including development costs in that "break even". CNES don't state what development costs are, which are separate from refurbishment.
This sounds reasonable to me, much more honest than ULA's lines (need 10 reuses to break even)
Cnes Future Launcher Roadmap - Ariane Next the European Falcon 9 in 2030 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49940.0) thread has a presentation from CNES about future launcher roadmap, slide 31 has an estimate of refurbishments costs (I assume the estimate is performed by CNES): "A refursbished stage costs between 6% and 40% of a new one"ULA will also be including development costs in that "break even". CNES don't state what development costs are, which are separate from refurbishment.
This sounds reasonable to me, much more honest than ULA's lines (need 10 reuses to break even)
I don't think that's correct, if you check the ULA SMART reuse paper (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/supporting-technologies/launch-vehicle-recovery-and-reuse-(aiaa-space-2015).pdf) or George Sowers' excel, development cost is not part of the equation.
$28M I assume is as said - the cost of the rocket launche(d) ie including fuel and launch and NEW STAGE 2 and as of this date, likely new fairings. (since recovery and commercial re-use is still just around the corner)Yes, he was speaking quickly but I think he said $28M was the “all up” cost of the reusable launch, which I would expect to include at least refurbishment costs and and all standard ground operations.
Therefore the cost of the re-used F9 stage 1 is well down. "Refurbishment" turn-around is quoted at 30 days in the same speech.
Cnes Future Launcher Roadmap - Ariane Next the European Falcon 9 in 2030 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49940.0) thread has a presentation from CNES about future launcher roadmap, slide 31 has an estimate of refurbishments costs (I assume the estimate is performed by CNES): "A refursbished stage costs between 6% and 40% of a new one"
This sounds reasonable to me, much more honest than ULA's lines (need 10 reuses to break even)
Without first-hand knowledge of the actual launch vehicle costs, we only have launch totals to provide a clue for relative launch vehicle "competitiveness". Totals from the past five years (2015-2019) show that "Falcon 9R" (Falcon 9 launches that have seen first stage recoveries) are, in that sense, very "competitive", but not utterly dominant as one might expect if booster reuse truly undercut the competition in pricing. Falcon 9R is very strong in LEO mission totals, but trails Ariane and Soyuz Fregat and Proton and even Atlas 5 in "beyond LEO" missions. Ariane 5 ECA, of course, remains competitive because it can boost almost two Falcon 9R's worth of payload to GTO per mission. Proton still ranks in beyond-LEO. DF-5 and R-7 still dominate the raw numbers, so surely must be cost-effective for their users.
2015-2019
Ranked by >LEO Totals
LEO >LEO
---------------------------
DF-5 CZ 56(3) 48(1)
Ariane 5 ECA - 26(1)
Atlas 5 8(0) 22(0)
Proton - 22(1)
R-7/Fregat 11(1) 19(0)
Falcon 9R 24(0) 15(0)
Falcon 9X 12(1) 13(0)
H2A 8(0) 6(0)
PSLV 16(0) 6(1)
Falcon Heavy - 3(0)
R-7 44(3) -
---------------------------
2015-2019
Ranked by LEO Totals
LEO >LEO
---------------------------
DF-5 CZ 56(3) 48(1)
R-7 44(3) -
Falcon 9R 24(0) 15(0)
PSLV 16(0) 6(1)
Falcon 9X 12(1) 13(0)
R-7/Fregat 11(1) 19(0)
Atlas 5 8(0) 22(0)
H2A 8(0) 6(0)
Ariane 5 ECA - 26(1)
Proton - 22(1)
Falcon Heavy - 3(0)
---------------------------
- Ed Kyle
Want to address Ed's comment in this locked thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50029.msg2041622#msg2041622Quite true. Just as the USG will never compete its NSS launches to anyone but a US based LV mfg.
The problem with using total # of launches to assess "competitiveness" is that the majority of the launches are not commercially competed, for example China and Russia would never use F9R for their internal launches no matter how competitive it is.
So it's misleading to compare total # of launches, what should be compared is the # of competitively awarded commercial launches. This latter number is not easy to get, since sometimes it's not clear whether a contract is competed, for example Viasat-3 was awarded to ULA, but both SpaceX and Ariane said it's not competed.Also quite true.
The same is true of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc. So it all kinds of washes out, perhaps. Keep in mind also that many of the recent SpaceX launches have been for its own satellite service, for which it may not be profiting much if at all.Want to address Ed's comment in this locked thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50029.msg2041622#msg2041622Quite true. Just as the USG will never compete its NSS launches to anyone but a US based LV mfg.
The problem with using total # of launches to assess "competitiveness" is that the majority of the launches are not commercially competed, for example China and Russia would never use F9R for their internal launches no matter how competitive it is.
The same is true of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc. So it all kinds of washes out, perhaps.Want to address Ed's comment in this locked thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50029.msg2041622#msg2041622Quite true. Just as the USG will never compete its NSS launches to anyone but a US based LV mfg.
The problem with using total # of launches to assess "competitiveness" is that the majority of the launches are not commercially competed, for example China and Russia would never use F9R for their internal launches no matter how competitive it is.
I do agree that trends going forward are going to be of interest. For example, SpaceX recently signed a contract for Nilesat, a service that previously only launched via. Arianespace. But I also believe the evidence so far shows Falcon 9 more competitive in LEO than in Beyond LEO.
- Ed Kyle
Keep in mind also that many of the recent SpaceX launches have been for its own satellite service, for which it may not be profiting much if at all.
Keep in mind also that many of the recent SpaceX launches have been for its own satellite service, for which it may not be profiting much if at all.Arguing that Starlink launches weren't competed is fair.
Most captured launches are captured for political or legal reasons, with economics having close to zero effect on the choice of LSP. For example, USAF will not even consider Ariane for launches, because they are prohibited by law from buying Ariane's services. Conversely, I'd argue that Starlink is captured almost entirely for economic reasons. And that is direct and strong evidence concerning the effect of reuse on costs - aka, What This Thread Is About.
Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here...
Even if some other launch provider were cheaper, it would look bad for SpaceX to not use their own launch vehicle. It would be admitting that their own launch service was actually not very cost effective. Thus, as long as they thought the profits from Starlink would still be greater than the costs of launching it on F9R, it could still make sense to take the more expensive route, in order to preserve their reputation and whatever profit they have from selling launches to others.
I don't actually believe this to be the case. For one, I doubt Elon would be able to keep himself silent about that. :D But in general, people and organizations sometimes do things that are not economic just to save their face.
Keep in mind also that many of the recent SpaceX launches have been for its own satellite service, for which it may not be profiting much if at all.Arguing that Starlink launches weren't competed is fair.
Perhaps it's fair, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.
Starlink launches might not have been offered to other LSPs. But does anyone really think that if another LSP were able to beat SpaceX's entire value proposition for launching Starlink, that LSP would not have gotten at least some of the business?
Part of that value proposition, of course, is that Starlink leverages SpaceX's considerable investment in launch services, allows them to improve their launch business, and allows them to develop and implement tech they need for Mars.
But Starlink offers a path to an order of magnitude more revenue than launch does. Maybe 2 orders of magnitude. If outsourcing some launch capacity would have saved some time or money in the process of getting it up and running, you know Musk would be pinching those pennies.
Most captured launches are captured for political or legal reasons, with economics having close to zero effect on the choice of LSP. For example, USAF will not even consider Ariane for launches, because they are prohibited by law from buying Ariane's services. Conversely, I'd argue that Starlink is captured almost entirely for economic reasons. And that is direct and strong evidence concerning the effect of reuse on costs - aka, What This Thread Is About.
I agree that Starlink was captured for economic reasons.
I happen to believe that Elon Musk figured that if he could provide cheap bulk launch it would incentivize others to create new businesses to take advantage of that. When he did and those businesses didn't materialize to take advantage of cheap launch in the way he thought they should, he said to himself, "Well, if nobody else is going to take advantage of the opportunity SpaceX is providing for new businesses from cheap launch, we'll do it ourselves." Starlink only exists to take advantage of the cheap launch SpaceX believes only it currently offers or will offer in the near future.
The reason I said I think it's fair to point out that Starlink launches weren't competed is that I think it requires additional evidence to claim that Starlink shows that SpaceX is competitive. I think that additional evidence exists and is pretty strong, it's just I wouldn't out-of-hand dismiss the fact that Starlink launches weren't competed.
(1) F9 needs to fly a lot of make reuse work economically.
(2) Flying Starlink makes all the other launches more affordable.
(3) I think SpaceX would launch Starlink competitor satellites in a heart beat.
Well technically it allows the staff costs entirely associated with launch to be spread over more launches to be paid for by Starlink
(2) I don't really think increased flight rate does much of anything for the affordability of other launches. Affordability is one of those words that needs to be defined. But except with respect to higher-flight rate leading to marginal savings in processings, I don't see Starlink affectiing "affordability" however you define it.
Well technically it allows the staff costs entirely associated with launch to be spread over more launches to be paid for by Starlink
(2) I don't really think increased flight rate does much of anything for the affordability of other launches. Affordability is one of those words that needs to be defined. But except with respect to higher-flight rate leading to marginal savings in processings, I don't see Starlink affectiing "affordability" however you define it.
Elon is of course over-stating his case as ULA currently can do things SpaceX can’t (vertical integration, larger fairing) that explains some of ULA’s launch wins.
Cheaper insurance is interesting. When Elon says ‘Falcon 9 mission’ I assume he means successful deployment of payload(s) into correct orbit(s)? In particular, not including the LV? With ULA so focussed on government missions, how many ULA missions are insured?
Elon is of course over-stating his case as ULA currently can do things SpaceX can’t (vertical integration, larger fairing) that explains some of ULA’s launch wins.
Space insurers to Elon Musk: No Elon, @SpaceX Falcon 9 does not get better rates @Arianespace Ariane 5 or @ulalaunch Atlas 5. bit.ly/2VwX00V
The meat of this content is paywalled.QuoteSpace insurers to Elon Musk: No Elon, @SpaceX Falcon 9 does not get better rates @Arianespace Ariane 5 or @ulalaunch Atlas 5. bit.ly/2VwX00V
Elon Musk touts low cost to insure SpaceX rockets as edge over competitors
PUBLISHED THU, APR 16 2020 11:52 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk touted low insurance costs as proof of the improving reliability of his company's Falcon 9 rockets.
"Last I checked, over a million dollars less ... to insure a Falcon 9 mission," Musk said in tweets Wednesday evening.
A top space insurance underwriter explained that Musk's reference is true for insurance premiums, which are based on the rocket's price tag, but not for the insurance rate, which is based on the market's perceived reliability of the rocket
This is clearer but is explicitly about LV cost to insure (which, everything else being equal, you’d expect to be lower for a rocket that’s cheaper to build):QuoteElon Musk touts low cost to insure SpaceX rockets as edge over competitors
PUBLISHED THU, APR 16 2020 11:52 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk touted low insurance costs as proof of the improving reliability of his company's Falcon 9 rockets.
"Last I checked, over a million dollars less ... to insure a Falcon 9 mission," Musk said in tweets Wednesday evening.
A top space insurance underwriter explained that Musk's reference is true for insurance premiums, which are based on the rocket's price tag, but not for the insurance rate, which is based on the market's perceived reliability of the rocket
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/16/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-over-a-million-dollars-less-to-insure.html
Government self insures and given how much some of their payloads cost ($B+), I can see why they use most reliable and accurate LV for more expensive missions.This is clearer but is explicitly about LV cost to insure (which, everything else being equal, you’d expect to be lower for a rocket that’s cheaper to build):QuoteElon Musk touts low cost to insure SpaceX rockets as edge over competitors
PUBLISHED THU, APR 16 2020 11:52 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk touted low insurance costs as proof of the improving reliability of his company's Falcon 9 rockets.
"Last I checked, over a million dollars less ... to insure a Falcon 9 mission," Musk said in tweets Wednesday evening.
A top space insurance underwriter explained that Musk's reference is true for insurance premiums, which are based on the rocket's price tag, but not for the insurance rate, which is based on the market's perceived reliability of the rocket
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/16/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-over-a-million-dollars-less-to-insure.html
That article states that insurance rates are 4% for F9, Atlas and Ariane. If true, that torpedoes the supposed “ULA reliability advantage” justification for higher launch prices, as from an insurer’s point of view the calculated risk is the same for all three rockets.
So that should put an end to that false narrative. Guess all that’s left is “government must subsidize assured access to space by propping up a non-competitive competitor to SpaceX.”
Government self insures and given how much some of their payloads cost ($B+), I can see why they use most reliable and accurate LV for more expensive missions.This is clearer but is explicitly about LV cost to insure (which, everything else being equal, you’d expect to be lower for a rocket that’s cheaper to build):QuoteElon Musk touts low cost to insure SpaceX rockets as edge over competitors
PUBLISHED THU, APR 16 2020 11:52 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk touted low insurance costs as proof of the improving reliability of his company's Falcon 9 rockets.
"Last I checked, over a million dollars less ... to insure a Falcon 9 mission," Musk said in tweets Wednesday evening.
A top space insurance underwriter explained that Musk's reference is true for insurance premiums, which are based on the rocket's price tag, but not for the insurance rate, which is based on the market's perceived reliability of the rocket
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/16/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-over-a-million-dollars-less-to-insure.html
That article states that insurance rates are 4% for F9, Atlas and Ariane. If true, that torpedoes the supposed “ULA reliability advantage” justification for higher launch prices, as from an insurer’s point of view the calculated risk is the same for all three rockets.
So that should put an end to that false narrative. Guess all that’s left is “government must subsidize assured access to space by propping up a non-competitive competitor to SpaceX.”
For NASA planetary missions it is also scheduling, some can't afford to miss their launch windows. Mars is good example where it is 2 years wait for next one, that will cost mission a small fortune.
Edit. Just show tweet about this, $500m if 2020 Mars window missed.
Your assuming F9 can do mission, if FH is needed then statistics favor Atlas and D4H.Government self insures and given how much some of their payloads cost ($B+), I can see why they use most reliable and accurate LV for more expensive missions.This is clearer but is explicitly about LV cost to insure (which, everything else being equal, you’d expect to be lower for a rocket that’s cheaper to build):QuoteElon Musk touts low cost to insure SpaceX rockets as edge over competitors
PUBLISHED THU, APR 16 2020 11:52 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
KEY POINTS
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk touted low insurance costs as proof of the improving reliability of his company's Falcon 9 rockets.
"Last I checked, over a million dollars less ... to insure a Falcon 9 mission," Musk said in tweets Wednesday evening.
A top space insurance underwriter explained that Musk's reference is true for insurance premiums, which are based on the rocket's price tag, but not for the insurance rate, which is based on the market's perceived reliability of the rocket
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/16/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-over-a-million-dollars-less-to-insure.html
That article states that insurance rates are 4% for F9, Atlas and Ariane. If true, that torpedoes the supposed “ULA reliability advantage” justification for higher launch prices, as from an insurer’s point of view the calculated risk is the same for all three rockets.
So that should put an end to that false narrative. Guess all that’s left is “government must subsidize assured access to space by propping up a non-competitive competitor to SpaceX.”
For NASA planetary missions it is also scheduling, some can't afford to miss their launch windows. Mars is good example where it is 2 years wait for next one, that will cost mission a small fortune.
Edit. Just show tweet about this, $500m if 2020 Mars window missed.
Sounds like you are implying that SX Falcon 9 have frequent and long schedule delays (or more so than Atlas). I don't think this assertion is supportable with data.
Atlas V and Falcon 9 have statistically similar failure probabilities. Perception favors Atlas V.
Your assuming F9 can do mission, if FH is needed then statistics favor Atlas and D4H.Falcon Heavy is at 100% success so far…
ULA CEO Tory Bruno's view on the economics of reusing rockets by propulsive flyback (the way SpaceX does):
"Our estimate remains around 10 flights as a fleet average to achieve a consistent breakeven point ... and that no one has come anywhere close."
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_on_reusability_one_would_want_a_fleet/
Tory Bruno clearly hasn’t changed his view:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273QuoteULA CEO Tory Bruno's view on the economics of reusing rockets by propulsive flyback (the way SpaceX does):
"Our estimate remains around 10 flights as a fleet average to achieve a consistent breakeven point ... and that no one has come anywhere close."
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_on_reusability_one_would_want_a_fleet/
Tory Bruno clearly hasn’t changed his view:I am starting to lose a lot of respect for him on this. He is beyond stretching here, mixing and confusing one time costs (which only affect total flights per payback on investment) with recurring costs. The second is the only one that is relevant when calculating per booster flybacks required to break even.
Tory Bruno clearly hasn’t changed his view:His entire view is based on a single assumption.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273
Tory Bruno tends to ignore the initial cost of the rocket in his justifications for reuse payback.Why are you quoting F9R when it doesn't have performance to cover ULA range of missions. Even as ELV F9 can't do some of their missions. If you want to justify your argument come up with single RLV specification that will cover their full range of missions. Then itemize costs associated with designing building and maintaining it.
For instance, if the initial cost of an expendable rocket (tanks, engines, electronics, etc.) is $50M, then adding $10M worth of expendable hardware and services makes sense, since the net result salvages at least $50M worth of assets if recovery is successful. If recovery is not successful, then you lost $10M above and beyond what you normally would have spent anyways.
These are made up numbers, but I wouldn't think they are too far off of the ratio SpaceX experiences with Falcon 9, and as they recover more and more stages their fixed costs get amortized.
There are too many forms of reusable transportation that rebut what Tory Bruno is trying to say...
Tory Bruno tends to ignore the initial cost of the rocket in his justifications for reuse payback.Why are you quoting F9R when it doesn't have performance to cover ULA range of missions.
For instance, if the initial cost of an expendable rocket (tanks, engines, electronics, etc.) is $50M, then adding $10M worth of expendable hardware and services makes sense, since the net result salvages at least $50M worth of assets if recovery is successful. If recovery is not successful, then you lost $10M above and beyond what you normally would have spent anyways.
These are made up numbers, but I wouldn't think they are too far off of the ratio SpaceX experiences with Falcon 9, and as they recover more and more stages their fixed costs get amortized.
There are too many forms of reusable transportation that rebut what Tory Bruno is trying to say...
Even as ELV F9 can't do some of their missions.
If you want to justify your argument come up with single RLV specification that will cover their full range of missions. Then itemize costs associated with designing building and maintaining it.
Once built going to need to find enough paying customers to support 20-30 flights a year.
SpaceX can't even support ULA range missions with single LV, they need FH for occasional high energy mission. FH is expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9 will be doing most launches.
When there is market for 50-100 missions a year to LEO for same payload range, then ULA will have case for fully reuseable RLV.
This debate about the cost of reusability is limited by the fact that the launch market is not particularly competitive. It is balkanized by nation-state and military interests and the size of the commercial launches is limited. There simply won't be enough data to make a judgment outside of the particular use cases of particular launch companies.
SpaceX has created their own demand with Starlink. From ULA's perspective there is no desirable commercial market and they are (not yet) at risk of losing out in the U.S. government launch market.
DoD want the two preferred launch providers to cover full range of missions.SpaceX can't even support ULA range missions with single LV, they need FH for occasional high energy mission. FH is expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9 will be doing most launches.
ULA can't neither support ULA range missions with single LV, they need Delta IV-H for occasional high energy mission. Delta IV-H is a much more expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9, FH and Atlas V will be doing most launches.When there is market for 50-100 missions a year to LEO for same payload range, then ULA will have case for fully reuseable RLV.
Which means never.
I think you are parroting Tory Bruno in your assumptions, but nevertheless SpaceX is planning 35-38 flights for 2020... :D
DoD want the two preferred launch providers to cover full range of missions.SpaceX can't even support ULA range missions with single LV, they need FH for occasional high energy mission. FH is expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9 will be doing most launches.
ULA can't neither support ULA range missions with single LV, they need Delta IV-H for occasional high energy mission. Delta IV-H is a much more expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9, FH and Atlas V will be doing most launches.When there is market for 50-100 missions a year to LEO for same payload range, then ULA will have case for fully reuseable RLV.
Which means never.
There is no cherry picking lower performance missions with RLV and not competing for high performance ones as you don't have HLV.
The Vulcan will cover full range of missions and to do so it will need to be ELV.
SpaceX can't cover full range of government missions with single ELV or RLV, they need two with FH doing higher performing missions. At current flight rate FH will be years paying for its development. What makes FH affordable is it allows SpaceX to compete for high value DoD missions.
ULA could build lower cost medium class RLV to cover majority missions but would still need HLV to cover few high performance missions that DoD require.
A F9R equivalent flown as ELV with SRBs for high performance missions, might cover full range of missions.
DoD want the two preferred launch providers to cover full range of missions.
There is no cherry picking lower performance missions with RLV and not competing for high performance ones as you don't have HLV.
I think you are parroting Tory Bruno in your assumptions, but nevertheless SpaceX is planning 35-38 flights for 2020... :DHow many are those commercially competed missions?. Internal Starlink missions don't count in regards to missions ULA could compete for.
We can also remove Dragon missions from list as ULA couldn't compete for them.
Disruptive innovations tend to be produced by outsiders and entrepreneurs in startups, rather than existing market-leading companies. The business environment of market leaders does not allow them to pursue disruptive innovations when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition).
There was a Space Shuttle payload bay that was THE standard for a few years to get into orbit.This debate about the cost of reusability is limited by the fact that the launch market is not particularly competitive. It is balkanized by nation-state and military interests and the size of the commercial launches is limited. There simply won't be enough data to make a judgment outside of the particular use cases of particular launch companies.
In our modern world, reusability has worked best when there has been standardization. Train cars have standard sizes, shipping containers have standard sizes, truck trailers have standard sizes, air cargo containers have standard sizes, etc.
We did't have that in the launch market.
What Elon Musk has done with reusable rockets is force the market to change to reusable rockets, not have reusable rockets have multiple versions to fit customers like ULA does. Even the USAF sees the benefit of changing their payloads to fit on low cost rockets, and those low cost rockets are that way because of reusability.QuoteSpaceX has created their own demand with Starlink. From ULA's perspective there is no desirable commercial market and they are (not yet) at risk of losing out in the U.S. government launch market.
ULA's parents dictate ULA's business plans - and what Tory Bruno cares about. Their business case has always been focused on Cost Plus contracting, and it would have continued that way if they weren't forced to give up their U.S. Government launch monopoly.
So I don't think they are excited about becoming a commodity launch provider and competing on qualities they don't have any institutional experience with.
SpaceX can't cover full range of government missions with single ELV or RLV
DoD want the two preferred launch providers to cover full range of missions.
There is no cherry picking lower performance missions with RLV and not competing for high performance ones as you don't have HLV.
The Vulcan will cover full range of missions and to do so it will need to be ELV.
SpaceX can't cover full range of government missions with single ELV or RLV, they need two with FH doing higher performing missions. At current flight rate FH will be years paying for its development. What makes FH affordable is it allows SpaceX to compete for high value DoD missions.
ULA could build lower cost medium class RLV to cover majority missions but would still need HLV to cover few high performance missions that DoD require.
A F9R equivalent flown as ELV with SRBs for high performance missions, might cover full range of missions.
DoD want the two preferred launch providers to cover full range of missions.SpaceX can't even support ULA range missions with single LV, they need FH for occasional high energy mission. FH is expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9 will be doing most launches.
ULA can't neither support ULA range missions with single LV, they need Delta IV-H for occasional high energy mission. Delta IV-H is a <u>much more</u> expensive LV to develop and maintain for small part of market especially when F9, FH and Atlas V will be doing most launches.When there is market for 50-100 missions a year to LEO for same payload range, then ULA will have case for fully reuseable RLV.
Which means never.
There is no cherry picking lower performance missions with RLV and not competing for high performance ones as you don't have HLV.
The Vulcan will cover full range of missions and to do so it will need to be ELV.
SpaceX can't cover full range of government missions with single ELV or RLV, they need two with FH doing higher performing missions.
At current flight rate FH will be years paying for its development. What makes FH affordable is it allows SpaceX to compete for high value DoD missions.
This debate about the cost of reusability is limited by the fact that the launch market is not particularly competitive. It is balkanized by nation-state and military interests and the size of the commercial launches is limited. There simply won't be enough data to make a judgment outside of the particular use cases of particular launch companies.
In our modern world, reusability has worked best when there has been standardization. Train cars have standard sizes, shipping containers have standard sizes, truck trailers have standard sizes, air cargo containers have standard sizes, etc.
We did't have that in the launch market.
What Elon Musk has done with reusable rockets is force the market to change to reusable rockets, not have reusable rockets have multiple versions to fit customers like ULA does. Even the USAF sees the benefit of changing their payloads to fit on low cost rockets, and those low cost rockets are that way because of reusability.
There was a Space Shuttle payload bay that was THE standard for a few years to get into orbit.
Bottom line is that lower launch costs through reusability allows for new business opportunities that no one else can pursue, which creates a Blue Ocean strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy) effect.
Bottom line is that lower launch costs through reusability allows for new business opportunities that no one else can pursue, which creates a Blue Ocean strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy) effect.
Just because RLV works for SpaceX and allows them to do Starlink, still doesn"t justify ULA building RLV. They or their owners won't be creating new business that would give RLV high flight rate it needs.
To be brutally honest, I kind of doubt ULA is viable *period*, let alone reuse. The financially smart move may be to just fly Atlas V as long as they can.
Bottom line is that lower launch costs through reusability allows for new business opportunities that no one else can pursue, which creates a Blue Ocean strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy) effect.
Just because RLV works for SpaceX and allows them to do Starlink, still doesn"t justify ULA building RLV. They or their owners won't be creating new business that would give RLV high flight rate it needs.
The debate is not whether RLV is working or not working for SpaceX but if ULA can justify development cost for their perceived market.
ULA parents were burnt before building LVs to service satellite consolations that never materialised. History is repeating its self with OneWeb going under and taking its dozens of launch contracts with it.
I'm of option that RLVs and new LEO activities will create new launch markets, but we've yet to see those increases.
It is true that you have to add a lot of extra hardware to recover a complete stage but as long as you get it back.... it’s kind of free every time thereafter. Economics for us are compelling, but we do have a different approach.
I know for Electron it’s more about easing your production demand (vs lowering launch prices) but what do you think your “breakeven point” is then, in terms of the fleet average reuse that Tory’s talking about here?
We are spending all our effort to limit the heat flux/ loads the stage experiences during descent. If our techniques are successfully rework is very minimal. In this case N=2 Payload hit is currently sitting at 10% with the current design.
It’s cute how some insist on classifying F9 and FH as separate launch vehicles, when I doubt ULA considered Delta IV medium and Heavy as separate launch vehicles. (Or would have called Atlas V heavy a different launch vehicle)It's not "cute." It's simply a statement of fact.
As a commercial business SX have to fund LV developments from income, with the exception of the revenues they've gotten from COTS of course, which are considerably above any plausible profit margin from standard F9 launches.At current flight rate FH will be years paying for its development. What makes FH affordable is it allows SpaceX to compete for high value DoD missions.
A bizarre non-sequitur if I’ve ever read one. Do you think Vulcan development is paid off? And do you hold it against ULA as well that they go for high value DoD missions to recoup development costs?
To be brutally honest, I kind of doubt ULA is viable *period*, let alone reuse. The financially smart move may be to just fly Atlas V as long as they can.This is one of those superficially sensible arguments that doesn't actually stand up.
Think about it. Vulcan is a big development cost, it depends on engines from a competitor, AND it resets the reliability counter to zero.
Sorry, but it’s you who have a superficial understanding, here. Ariane 5 had multiple launch failures early in its flight history, so Ariane backs up my argument.To be brutally honest, I kind of doubt ULA is viable *period*, let alone reuse. The financially smart move may be to just fly Atlas V as long as they can.This is one of those superficially sensible arguments that doesn't actually stand up.
Think about it. Vulcan is a big development cost, it depends on engines from a competitor, AND it resets the reliability counter to zero.
It was made when Arianespace shifted from the hypergolic A4 to A5 and when LM went from the pressure stabilized Atlas III to Atlas V and when Boeing went from the kerolox Delta II to the LO2/LH2 Delta IV
In reality each provider was able to preserve it's successful flight record.
Suggesting that the process of mfg and operating the vehicle is much more important (to delivering consistent performance) than most laymen think.
A different data point on reuse economics:At N=2 probably not going see much of launch price reduce but they can dramatically increase launch rate.
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1251627739821441024QuoteIt is true that you have to add a lot of extra hardware to recover a complete stage but as long as you get it back.... it’s kind of free every time thereafter. Economics for us are compelling, but we do have a different approach.
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251628668495048709QuoteI know for Electron it’s more about easing your production demand (vs lowering launch prices) but what do you think your “breakeven point” is then, in terms of the fleet average reuse that Tory’s talking about here?
https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1251634905747910656QuoteWe are spending all our effort to limit the heat flux/ loads the stage experiences during descent. If our techniques are successfully rework is very minimal. In this case N=2 Payload hit is currently sitting at 10% with the current design.
To be brutally honest, I kind of doubt ULA is viable *period*, let alone reuse. The financially smart move may be to just fly Atlas V as long as they can.
Bottom line is that lower launch costs through reusability allows for new business opportunities that no one else can pursue, which creates a Blue Ocean strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy) effect.
Just because RLV works for SpaceX and allows them to do Starlink, still doesn"t justify ULA building RLV. They or their owners won't be creating new business that would give RLV high flight rate it needs.
The debate is not whether RLV is working or not working for SpaceX but if ULA can justify development cost for their perceived market.
ULA parents were burnt before building LVs to service satellite consolations that never materialised. History is repeating its self with OneWeb going under and taking its dozens of launch contracts with it.
I'm of option that RLVs and new LEO activities will create new launch markets, but we've yet to see those increases.
Think about it. Vulcan is a big development cost, it depends on engines from a competitor, AND it resets the reliability counter to zero.
Bottom line is that lower launch costs through reusability allows for new business opportunities that no one else can pursue, which creates a Blue Ocean strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy) effect.
Just because RLV works for SpaceX and allows them to do Starlink, still doesn"t justify ULA building RLV. They or their owners won't be creating new business that would give RLV high flight rate it needs.
The debate is not whether RLV is working or not working for SpaceX but if ULA can justify development cost for their perceived market.
ULA parents were burnt before building LVs to service satellite consolations that never materialised. History is repeating its self with OneWeb going under and taking its dozens of launch contracts with it.
SpaceX’s bid for the Iridium Next launch campaign—which consisted of eight flights from January 2017 to January 2019 from Vandenberg AFB in California—was $500 million. “My next price from there was $1.2 billion to launch the same 75 satellites,” says Iridium CEO Matt Desch. “Thank God for SpaceX . . . . I’m not sure I could have afforded the second-best price.”
I'm of option that RLVs and new LEO activities will create new launch markets, but we've yet to see those increases.
It’s cute how some insist on classifying F9 and FH as separate launch vehicles, when I doubt ULA considered Delta IV medium and Heavy as separate launch vehicles. (Or would have called Atlas V heavy a different launch vehicle)It's not "cute." It's simply a statement of fact.
The "Common Booster Core" is common to the D IV medium range missions butthe core of the DIVH is a special build exactly like the core on an FH is a special build.
Both need to be specially scheduled on their production lines, although AFAIK the only DIVH cores left are in storage.
Quote from: Lars-JAs a commercial business SX have to fund LV developments from income, with the exception of the revenues they've gotten from COTS of course, which are considerably above any plausible profit margin from standard F9 launches.At current flight rate FH will be years paying for its development. What makes FH affordable is it allows SpaceX to compete for high value DoD missions.
A bizarre non-sequitur if I’ve ever read one. Do you think Vulcan development is paid off? And do you hold it against ULA as well that they go for high value DoD missions to recoup development costs?
We are spending all our effort to limit the heat flux/ loads the stage experiences during descent. If our techniques are successfully rework is very minimal. In this case N=2 Payload hit is currently sitting at 10% with the current design.
10% would be impressive. Anything below a 20% payload hit would be outstanding.
10% is only possible if you let the atmosphere do all the work and don’t need to carry any propellant. But you trade a whole lot of other things and end up paying for it operationally and logistically. Hence plucking things out of the sky with a helicopter down range.....
ULA isn't funding Vulcan by itself. They received quite a bit of money from the Air Force.That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure if I was confusing that with the USAF's support for the new NG launcher.
This debate about the cost of reusability is limited by the fact that the launch market is not particularly competitive. It is balkanized by nation-state and military interests and the size of the commercial launches is limited. There simply won't be enough data to make a judgment outside of the particular use cases of particular launch companies.Quite correct.
SpaceX has created their own demand with Starlink. From ULA's perspective there is no desirable commercial market and they are (not yet) at risk of losing out in the U.S. government launch market.
FYI - Delta IV-H actually consist of THREE unique cores (left, center, and right) which are not interchangeable.I never said it did. F9 and FH are different vehicles and yes Vulcan with a 4 engine centaur will be a different vehicle, wheather or not it's labelled as such by ULA.
But if your argument - that FH center cores are unique builds that have to be scheduled therefore they are unique vehicles - still doesn’t offer a distinction between it and Vulcan.
You see, THAT is my point. People are shifting goalposts left and right to fit their agendas.That's something I can definitely agree with you on on (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjVbJE)
And ULA is different how? I wasn’t stating it was a wrong statement, just it was a non-sequitur because the implication was it was a unique situation for FH. Vulcan won’t be paid off with its first contract - assuming it gets one.As I thought I recalled, and another poster confirmed, ULA did get a bag of cash from the USAF to develop Vulcan and given their very long standing relationship with the USAF they will win launches.
And once a LV mfg paints themselves into a corner that tight it's very difficult to get out of. :(Tory Bruno clearly hasn’t changed his view:His entire view is based on a single assumption.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273
The core LV to carry out a range of missions is sized to carry out the minimum mission of the range. The minimum viable product.
This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
But SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
However if you're claiming that it cost less than 1/2 the cost of a new stage that was easy to find.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/QuoteBut SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
If the booster is 70% of the hardware and allowing a 20% gross profit margin that's an additional $18m in profit even assuming 50% of the cost of the booster is spent in refurb costs.
So in principle SC could cut their price by a further $18m to $44m and still make a profit, but not to $31m a lauch which would be a full 50% cut in price.
Would you like to reconsider your claim?
The launch price is made up of vehicle build cost (booster +US +fairing), launch costs (transporting LV, launch crew fuel, payload integration, range fees etc) and profit . The only thing recovery will do is reduce booster cost, but that now has additional recovery costs associated with it ie maintaining recovery marine fleet and refurbishment costs.This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
However if you're claiming that it cost less than 1/2 the cost of a new stage that was easy to find.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/QuoteBut SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
If the booster is 70% of the hardware and allowing a 20% gross profit margin that's an additional $18m in profit even assuming 50% of the cost of the booster is spent in refurb costs.
So in principle SC could cut their price by a further $18m to $44m and still make a profit, but not to $31m a lauch which would be a full 50% cut in price.
Would you like to reconsider your claim?
The launch price is made up of vehicle build cost (booster +US +fairing), launch costs (transporting LV, launch crew fuel, payload integration, range fees etc) and profit . The only thing recovery will do is reduce booster cost, but that now has additional recovery costs associated with it ie maintaining recovery marine fleet and refurbishment costs.This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
However if you're claiming that it cost less than 1/2 the cost of a new stage that was easy to find.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/QuoteBut SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
If the booster is 70% of the hardware and allowing a 20% gross profit margin that's an additional $18m in profit even assuming 50% of the cost of the booster is spent in refurb costs.
So in principle SC could cut their price by a further $18m to $44m and still make a profit, but not to $31m a lauch which would be a full 50% cut in price.
Would you like to reconsider your claim?
Unless SpaceX want to reduce profit in $ per launch, I can't see it dropping much lower than $50m. That $50m RLV launch has 30-50% lower performance.
Same applies to RL Electron recovery. That is why don't see them dramatically reducing Electron list price. Most likely keep it at $5m mark which it has creeped up from. What RLV gives them is more responsive launch as they have spare boosters ready to go.
I wouldn't include fairing reuse in there, their recovery method is far from perfected.This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
However if you're claiming that it cost less than 1/2 the cost of a new stage that was easy to find.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/QuoteBut SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
If the booster is 70% of the hardware and allowing a 20% gross profit margin that's an additional $18m in profit even assuming 50% of the cost of the booster is spent in refurb costs.
So in principle SC could cut their price by a further $18m to $44m and still make a profit, but not to $31m a lauch which would be a full 50% cut in price.
Would you like to reconsider your claim?
Not quite.
Shotwell's comment above referred to the very first re-used F9. So let's assume she was referring to just the first stage, which is 70% of the total cost. Going with your 20% profit margin on a $60m launch price, that means the cost of the rocket is $50m, and the first stage cost is then $35m.
We also know that the fairing cost is $6m. So for a new rocket, that gives us:
First Stage - $35m
Fairing - $6m.
2nd Stage+fuel+launch operations - $9m
Total = $50m
"Substantially less than half" surely cannot be more than 40-45% at most, which gives you maximum $15m to refurbish the first stage. Add $6m for the fairing and $9m for the rest and you get to $30m.
But that was for the very first refurbished rocket. Since then they have gotten a lot better. That original 40-45% refurbishment cost will now be significantly improved. 33% is probably quite reasonable by now. Meaning $12m. Additionally, they are reusing the fairings. Let's assume refurbishing a water landed fairing is still reasonably costly, and still costs $3m (half the original fairing price).
So now we have:
Refurbished first stage cost: $12m
Refurbished fairing cost: $3m
2nd Stage plus launch costs: $9m.
Total: $24m
That's the marginal launch cost of a refurbished rocket. To get the lifetime costs, we then need to add the portion of the original manufacturing cost amortized over the number of launches. Currently that record is 5 launches. So $35m/5 = $7m.
Without any preconceived intention, I have arrived at a total liftetime rocket cost of $24m+$7m = $31m. Once we spread the manufacturing cost over 10 launches, it comes down to about $28m. This is a rough estimate, but clearly around $30m seems to increasingly look like the ballpark figure. With a downward trend over time as they get better at it.
EDIT
Edited to correct some basic calculation errors.
Unless SpaceX want to reduce profit in $ per launch, I can't see it dropping much lower than $50m. That $50m RLV launch has 30-50% lower performance.
I wouldn't include fairing reuse in there, their recovery method is far from perfected.This must have been posted but I can't find it, even with Google search.You probably can't because it's not true.
Reusability halves the cost to launch relative to list price (not quite apples to apples but still...).
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1250820281536413700
However if you're claiming that it cost less than 1/2 the cost of a new stage that was easy to find.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/QuoteBut SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.
If the booster is 70% of the hardware and allowing a 20% gross profit margin that's an additional $18m in profit even assuming 50% of the cost of the booster is spent in refurb costs.
So in principle SC could cut their price by a further $18m to $44m and still make a profit, but not to $31m a lauch which would be a full 50% cut in price.
Would you like to reconsider your claim?
Not quite.
Shotwell's comment above referred to the very first re-used F9. So let's assume she was referring to just the first stage, which is 70% of the total cost. Going with your 20% profit margin on a $60m launch price, that means the cost of the rocket is $50m, and the first stage cost is then $35m.
We also know that the fairing cost is $6m. So for a new rocket, that gives us:
First Stage - $35m
Fairing - $6m.
2nd Stage+fuel+launch operations - $9m
Total = $50m
"Substantially less than half" surely cannot be more than 40-45% at most, which gives you maximum $15m to refurbish the first stage. Add $6m for the fairing and $9m for the rest and you get to $30m.
But that was for the very first refurbished rocket. Since then they have gotten a lot better. That original 40-45% refurbishment cost will now be significantly improved. 33% is probably quite reasonable by now. Meaning $12m. Additionally, they are reusing the fairings. Let's assume refurbishing a water landed fairing is still reasonably costly, and still costs $3m (half the original fairing price).
So now we have:
Refurbished first stage cost: $12m
Refurbished fairing cost: $3m
2nd Stage plus launch costs: $9m.
Total: $24m
That's the marginal launch cost of a refurbished rocket. To get the lifetime costs, we then need to add the portion of the original manufacturing cost amortized over the number of launches. Currently that record is 5 launches. So $35m/5 = $7m.
Without any preconceived intention, I have arrived at a total liftetime rocket cost of $24m+$7m = $31m. Once we spread the manufacturing cost over 10 launches, it comes down to about $28m. This is a rough estimate, but clearly around $30m seems to increasingly look like the ballpark figure. With a downward trend over time as they get better at it.
EDIT
Edited to correct some basic calculation errors.
Not sure what your final $28m figure is for.
Unless SpaceX want to reduce profit in $ per launch, I can't see it dropping much lower than $50m. That $50m RLV launch has 30-50% lower performance.
That is the first time I've heard such a claim, that a reused booster has less performance.
Where is your documentation for that?
What I mean to say is: a performance "reduction" is irrelevant if your launch vehicle already had much more performance than it needed for the payload.
Right. And Expendable Falcon 9 served as a placeholder for reusable Falcon Heavy, so the fact FH was delayed just wasn't that big of a priority until SpaceX was shooting for the highest margin DoD type launches.What I mean to say is: a performance "reduction" is irrelevant if your launch vehicle already had much more performance than it needed for the payload.
THIS!
That is why so many people seem to be confused about the Falcon 9, is that they see the reusable performance as a REDUCTION, whereas the expendable performance is actually an ADDITION.
The broad market SpaceX built Falcon 9 to serve is within the capabilities of the reusable version of Falcon 9, and we see this in their launch/landing history over the past couple of years, where the majority of customer launches allowed for booster recovery.
I wouldn't include fairing reuse in there, their recovery method is far from perfected.True, but I think there's no doubt SX will continue to refine their process and improve their success rate.
Not sure what your final $28m figure is for.
I wouldn't include fairing reuse in there, their recovery method is far from perfected.True, but I think there's no doubt SX will continue to refine their process and improve their success rate.
Not sure what your final $28m figure is for.
Factoring fairing recovery (and assuming fairing refurb is half or less than new build cost) I now accept that SX's costs could well be below half their expendable asking price.
Wheather any of that cost reduction is seen in end user pricing remains to be seen. :(
I think people underestimate how powerful Falcon 9 is. It has a 22.8 ton payload in single-stick expendable mode, which is within about 10% of the most powerful non-SpaceX launch vehicle currently flying (and almost the same as what the original Falcon 9 Heavy was supposed to be), qualifying even in single-stick mode as a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Almost no payloads need that LEO performance, so a reduction in performance to "merely" 16.8 tons is really only a drawback on a fraction of LEO launches.So 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.
Same is true (but to a lesser extent) to higher energy trajectories.
It really is a pretty optimized situation that breaks a lot of the naive(ly pessimistic) reusability economic comparison models, particularly when combined with the fact that the reuse development flights were mostly done on operational, profitable flights.
What I mean to say is: a performance "reduction" is irrelevant if your launch vehicle already had much more performance than it needed for the payload.
ULA's Atlas cost distribution across the vehicle is representative of the industry as a whole, and SpaceX is straight up lying about its financials? ???Try to answer at least one from 7 questions I asked ? :)
So 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.err no he does not. He knows what it costs for ULA to do so but does not know the cost for Space X to do so. In terms of real life, a trained mechanic could keep an old car running for less cash than some else. They have the skills and tools to do the theme selves while other car owners don't. He has got no insight into the cost to make the F9 reusable or how much Space X spends on hardware.
My summary :
1. He know exactly what hardware you must add to booster to make it reusable and how much this hardware costs ?
2. He double down on 1st stage being just 25 %, maximum 35 % of total cost of launch.
3. He double down that you need at 10 reuse for you fleet in average to breakeven and that nobody ( SX ) came ever close to making of propulsive flyback economically sustainable.For ULA it might make sense for ten reuses, but there are clear reasons why it could take Space X less than that.
4. He suggest that SX has lot of outside investments and private money lenders, which bring total disconnect between actual prices and costs or actual prices and positive cash flow financial situation.Desperation it sounds like. Outside investors would want to take a very close look at Elon's books before investing. If they feel comfortable investing then they have kicked the tires far harder than joe on the street.
I read that F9 development cost was 900 ml$, F9R block 5 development cost was at least 900 ml$ and FH development cost was at least 500 ml$.Development of Falcon v1.0, including LC-40, was $400 million.
7. I heard that USAF also contributed to Raptor development. Did we know how much ?
ULA's Atlas cost distribution across the vehicle is representative of the industry as a whole, and SpaceX is straight up lying about its financials? ???Try to answer at least one from 7 questions I asked ? :)
I read that F9 development cost was 900 ml$, F9R block 5 development cost was at least 900 ml$ and FH development cost was at least 500 ml$.Development of Falcon v1.0, including LC-40, was $400 million.
Development of F9 v1.1 up to and including F9R Block 5, including development of recovery-and-reuse assets such as the ASDS vehicles, as well as re-development of LC-40 after AMOS-6, and development of Merlin 1D, was ~ $1.5 billion.
Development of FH was $500 million, including FH specific GSE and launch infrastructure at LC-39A.
Other modifications to LC-39A were specific to Crew Dragon and were covered by the CCP contract (think demolition of the shuttle-era RSS, installation of Crew Access Arm, Crew Escape Systems, Reinforcing the FSS, Closing up the FSS, etc.)7. I heard that USAF also contributed to Raptor development. Did we know how much ?
$95 million.
ULA's Atlas cost distribution across the vehicle is representative of the industry as a whole, and SpaceX is straight up lying about its financials? ???Try to answer at least one from 7 questions I asked ? :)
I read that F9 development cost was 900 ml$, F9R block 5 development cost was at least 900 ml$ and FH development cost was at least 500 ml$.Development of Falcon v1.0, including LC-40, was $400 million.
Development of F9 v1.1 up to and including F9R Block 5, including development of recovery-and-reuse assets such as the ASDS vehicles, as well as re-development of LC-40 after AMOS-6, and development of Merlin 1D, was ~ $1.5 billion.
Development of FH was $500 million, including FH specific GSE and launch infrastructure at LC-39A.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
My question was do you believe SpaceX had a 77% profit margin built into their original $62m price for an expendable launch? If not, your calculation doesn’t hold water, as your first stage production cost is way too low.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
My question was do you believe SpaceX had a 77% profit margin built into their original $62m price for an expendable launch? If not, your calculation doesn’t hold water, as your first stage production cost is way too low.
It's highly propable that they can get 77% profit margin per (reused booster) launch but this margin doesn't include others year long overhead expenses, the number of launches per year, financial costs, R&d.......etc.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
My question was do you believe SpaceX had a 77% profit margin built into their original $62m price for an expendable launch? If not, your calculation doesn’t hold water, as your first stage production cost is way too low.
It's highly propable that they can get 77% profit margin per (reused booster) launch but this margin doesn't include others year long overhead expenses, the number of launches per year, financial costs, R&d.......etc.
At issue is the $25m full production cost you estimate for a new booster. Because that only translates to a $35m total cost for a new, EXPENDABLE rocket. That’s not with any reuse. That’s for one time use only, based on your $25m production cost estimate for the first stage, which is 70% of the total rocket cost. That’s our point of contention. I’m saying production cost of a new booster has to be $35m.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
My question was do you believe SpaceX had a 77% profit margin built into their original $62m price for an expendable launch? If not, your calculation doesn’t hold water, as your first stage production cost is way too low.
It's highly propable that they can get 77% profit margin per (reused booster) launch but this margin doesn't include others year long overhead expenses, the number of launches per year, financial costs, R&d.......etc.
At issue is the $25m full production cost you estimate for a new booster. Because that only translates to a $35m total cost for a new, EXPENDABLE rocket. That’s not with any reuse. That’s for one time use only, based on your $25m production cost estimate for the first stage, which is 70% of the total rocket cost. That’s our point of contention. I’m saying production cost of a new booster has to be $35m.
Sorry I didn't got you at first, my calculation are based on Shotwell declaration that first stage booster is 70% of falcon9 cost of prodution not overall cost like R&D, fuel, operating expense which can't be retrieved on each succeful landing so for me the real cost of a brand new F9 hardware (drymass) is = 35m$. (with first stage 21.5m$, second stage + fairing 13.5 m$)
R&D (83 launchs) = 5m$.
Fuel and others operating expenses = 10m$
Total = 50 m$ cost of a ready to launch brand new F9. 42 m$ per launch for reused booster with new fairing.
To make it simple SX is saving on each reusable launch the cost of a new first stage less refrubishment costs, now if the the first stage production cost is 25 m$ less 12 millions refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
Personnelly I dont think the first stage production cost is 25m $ because that figure include the R&D costs.
According to wikipedia F1+ F9 R&D cost is 490 m$ with a total of 83 launches which makes 5 m$ per launch almost 10% of the overall cost of a launch.
if we deduce 70% of 5 m$ it makes 3.5 m$ that could not be saved by spacex on each reusable launch which makes 8.5 m$ saved per reused booster launch.
I counted 20 reused booster (block5) launchs which makes 20x8.5 = 170 m$ saved.
At just $25m first stage production cost you seem to be assuming a massive profit margin in the expendable F9 $62m price tag. Because if $25m = 70% of the cost, then total expendable launch cost is only $35m, implying a massive 77% profit margin. That is highly unlikely. Around $50m as the internal cost of an expendable launch seems more likely.
8.5 m$ per reused booster launch saving on a 62 m$ tagged launch it makes 13% saving, it's not negligable but still not a revolution.
My question was do you believe SpaceX had a 77% profit margin built into their original $62m price for an expendable launch? If not, your calculation doesn’t hold water, as your first stage production cost is way too low.
It's highly propable that they can get 77% profit margin per (reused booster) launch but this margin doesn't include others year long overhead expenses, the number of launches per year, financial costs, R&d.......etc.
At issue is the $25m full production cost you estimate for a new booster. Because that only translates to a $35m total cost for a new, EXPENDABLE rocket. That’s not with any reuse. That’s for one time use only, based on your $25m production cost estimate for the first stage, which is 70% of the total rocket cost. That’s our point of contention. I’m saying production cost of a new booster has to be $35m.
Sorry I didn't got you at first, my calculation are based on Shotwell declaration that first stage booster is 70% of falcon9 cost of prodution not overall cost like R&D, fuel, operating expense which can't be retrieved on each succeful landing so for me the real cost of a brand new F9 hardware (drymass) is = 35m$. (with first stage 21.5m$, second stage + fairing 13.5 m$)
R&D (83 launchs) = 5m$.
Fuel and others operating expenses = 10m$
Total = 50 m$ cost of a ready to launch brand new F9. 42 m$ per launch for reused booster with new fairing.
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Elon is aiming for something like $3m per Starship launch. Even if Starship itself costs zero, that is clearly not possible if fuel and launch operations for the much smaller F9 costs $10m. So I think you severely overestimate launch operations costs. It is probably below $3m.
... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Sorry guys, but aren't you just throwing random numbers here.. I don't thnik there's any source about the cost of booster refubrishment.. could be also as low as 4-5m$ ..
We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).I wouldn't include fairing reuse in there, their recovery method is far from perfected.True, but I think there's no doubt SX will continue to refine their process and improve their success rate.
Not sure what your final $28m figure is for.
Factoring fairing recovery (and assuming fairing refurb is half or less than new build cost) I now accept that SX's costs could well be below half their expendable asking price.
Wheather any of that cost reduction is seen in end user pricing remains to be seen. :(
... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Sorry guys, but aren't you just throwing random numbers here.. I don't thnik there's any source about the cost of booster refubrishment.. could be also as low as 4-5m$ ..
Did you incorporate cost of drone ship acquisition and O&M and others transportations fees?
We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).
I read that F9 development cost was 900 ml$, F9R block 5 development cost was at least 900 ml$ and FH development cost was at least 500 ml$.Development of Falcon v1.0, including LC-40, was $400 million.
Development of F9 v1.1 up to and including F9R Block 5, including development of recovery-and-reuse assets such as the ASDS vehicles, as well as re-development of LC-40 after AMOS-6, and development of Merlin 1D, was ~ $1.5 billion.
Development of FH was $500 million, including FH specific GSE and launch infrastructure at LC-39A.
Investment in FH may pay for its self in near term if it means SpaceX becomes one of DoD preferred launch providers. Without they would've won Gateway supply contract.
... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Sorry guys, but aren't you just throwing random numbers here.. I don't thnik there's any source about the cost of booster refubrishment.. could be also as low as 4-5m$ ..
You make a correct observation.
The only number that was once thrown around publically was from Gwynne. She stated after the first re-flight that the refurbishment cost of that very first re-flown booster had been "significantly less than half the cost of building a new booster".
I'll add some source information to put Gwynne's statement from 2017 in context with the here-and-now (now that we are 3 years beyond that first re-flight):
That number from Gwynne applied to the early days of reuse. When the definitive heat-shielding and titanium grid fins were still being developed. These first reused boosters required significant refurbisment of the aft heatshield and complete replacement of the flexible heatshielding around the engines. As well as having the grid fins replaced or completely refurbished. And refurbishment of engines due to the soft shields failing to do their job.
Not so with the current iteration of F9 first stages. The aft heat shield now requires very little refurbishment. The flexible shield around the engines has been replaced with a much more resilient shifting shield. This requires much less refurbishment. Aluminium grid fins have been replaced with near-impervious titanium grid fins. The booster wall insulation has been evolved to the point that it requires basically no attention between flights.
The early re-flights saw massive inspections of the shape of the tanks as well as extensive inspections of the welds. As well as NDE methods for searching for cracks in the stage structure. Those early inspections confirmed that the stage structure and stage design was sound, and good to go without massive inspections in-between flight. The bolted octaweb also proved to be an improvement over the earlier welded octaweb.
Efforts to clear the engines for re-flight have also decreased significantly, based upon experience with reuse. Doing away with the highly polished engine bells was one improvement.
Leg design also evolved to the point that the legs now require very little refurbishment between flights.
All in all the cost of preparing a F9 first stage for another flight has dropped very significantly. It is now nowhere near where it was when that first re-flight took place.
You make a correct observation.So TBH all we can really say about booster refurbishment is
The only number that was once thrown around publically was from Gwynne. She stated after the first re-flight that the refurbishment cost of that very first re-flown booster had been "significantly less than half the cost of building a new booster".
....
All in all the cost of preparing a F9 first stage for another flight has dropped very significantly. It is now nowhere near where it was when that first re-flight took place.
We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).
We have even seen a price of $42M. To NASA, including five mission-unique services, for the Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.msg1967914#msg1967914
I get that, but they could have lowered the reusable F9 price and at the same time increased their profit margin. I would. It is not necessarily at all to forward all your benefits to to customers.. From a business perspective I would forward maybe 50% to increase competitiveness and save the other % for profit - >meaning other R&D /starship/ in this case... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Sorry guys, but aren't you just throwing random numbers here.. I don't thnik there's any source about the cost of booster refubrishment.. could be also as low as 4-5m$ ..
You make a correct observation.
The only number that was once thrown around publically was from Gwynne. She stated after the first re-flight that the refurbishment cost of that very first re-flown booster had been "significantly less than half the cost of building a new booster".
I'll add some source information to put Gwynne's statement from 2017 in context with the here-and-now (now that we are 3 years beyond that first re-flight):
That number from Gwynne applied to the early days of reuse. When the definitive heat-shielding and titanium grid fins were still being developed. These first reused boosters required significant refurbisment of the aft heatshield and complete replacement of the flexible heatshielding around the engines. As well as having the grid fins replaced or completely refurbished. And refurbishment of engines due to the soft shields failing to do their job.
Not so with the current iteration of F9 first stages. The aft heat shield now requires very little refurbishment. The flexible shield around the engines has been replaced with a much more resilient shifting shield. This requires much less refurbishment. Aluminium grid fins have been replaced with near-impervious titanium grid fins. The booster wall insulation has been evolved to the point that it requires basically no attention between flights.
The early re-flights saw massive inspections of the shape of the tanks as well as extensive inspections of the welds. As well as NDE methods for searching for cracks in the stage structure. Those early inspections confirmed that the stage structure and stage design was sound, and good to go without massive inspections in-between flight. The bolted octaweb also proved to be an improvement over the earlier welded octaweb.
Efforts to clear the engines for re-flight have also decreased significantly, based upon experience with reuse. Doing away with the highly polished engine bells was one improvement.
Leg design also evolved to the point that the legs now require very little refurbishment between flights.
All in all the cost of preparing a F9 first stage for another flight has dropped very significantly. It is now nowhere near where it was when that first re-flight took place.
We have more data points than that, though.
We know Elon said a booster was 70% of the cost of the entire rocket.
And we know Elon said that the fairings cost $6m.
He also said that the fuel costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight.
And we know that the full price charged to customers - before reuse was developed - was $62m.
And as you highlighted above, we know that refurbishment will now cost far less than half the original booster cost.
Those are the numbers we have. From that, we can narrow things down significantly. I've done that upthread, but anyone who uses these parameters will come to a very similar figure of around $30m cost for a reusable F9.
I get that, but they could have lowered the reusable F9 price and at the same time increased their profit margin. I would. It is not necessarily at all to forward all your benefits to to customers.. From a business perspective I would forward maybe 50% to increase competitiveness and save the other % for profit - >meaning other R&D /starship/ in this case... refrubishment cost (50%), still it makes a fixed 13 m$ saving for each fligh with a reusable booster.
...
12 m$ margin on a brand new F9 = 20% margin.
20 m$ margin reused booster = 32% margin.
Sorry guys, but aren't you just throwing random numbers here.. I don't thnik there's any source about the cost of booster refubrishment.. could be also as low as 4-5m$ ..
You make a correct observation.
The only number that was once thrown around publically was from Gwynne. She stated after the first re-flight that the refurbishment cost of that very first re-flown booster had been "significantly less than half the cost of building a new booster".
I'll add some source information to put Gwynne's statement from 2017 in context with the here-and-now (now that we are 3 years beyond that first re-flight):
That number from Gwynne applied to the early days of reuse. When the definitive heat-shielding and titanium grid fins were still being developed. These first reused boosters required significant refurbisment of the aft heatshield and complete replacement of the flexible heatshielding around the engines. As well as having the grid fins replaced or completely refurbished. And refurbishment of engines due to the soft shields failing to do their job.
Not so with the current iteration of F9 first stages. The aft heat shield now requires very little refurbishment. The flexible shield around the engines has been replaced with a much more resilient shifting shield. This requires much less refurbishment. Aluminium grid fins have been replaced with near-impervious titanium grid fins. The booster wall insulation has been evolved to the point that it requires basically no attention between flights.
The early re-flights saw massive inspections of the shape of the tanks as well as extensive inspections of the welds. As well as NDE methods for searching for cracks in the stage structure. Those early inspections confirmed that the stage structure and stage design was sound, and good to go without massive inspections in-between flight. The bolted octaweb also proved to be an improvement over the earlier welded octaweb.
Efforts to clear the engines for re-flight have also decreased significantly, based upon experience with reuse. Doing away with the highly polished engine bells was one improvement.
Leg design also evolved to the point that the legs now require very little refurbishment between flights.
All in all the cost of preparing a F9 first stage for another flight has dropped very significantly. It is now nowhere near where it was when that first re-flight took place.
We have more data points than that, though.
We know Elon said a booster was 70% of the cost of the entire rocket.
And we know Elon said that the fairings cost $6m.
He also said that the fuel costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight.
And we know that the full price charged to customers - before reuse was developed - was $62m.
And as you highlighted above, we know that refurbishment will now cost far less than half the original booster cost.
Those are the numbers we have. From that, we can narrow things down significantly. I've done that upthread, but anyone who uses these parameters will come to a very similar figure of around $30m cost for a reusable F9.
Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk
I was thinking more about Hubble and the classified missions, the whole reason why the Orbiter Vehicles PLB was so "yuge".This debate about the cost of reusability is limited by the fact that the launch market is not particularly competitive. It is balkanized by nation-state and military interests and the size of the commercial launches is limited. There simply won't be enough data to make a judgment outside of the particular use cases of particular launch companies.
In our modern world, reusability has worked best when there has been standardization. Train cars have standard sizes, shipping containers have standard sizes, truck trailers have standard sizes, air cargo containers have standard sizes, etc.
We did't have that in the launch market.
What Elon Musk has done with reusable rockets is force the market to change to reusable rockets, not have reusable rockets have multiple versions to fit customers like ULA does. Even the USAF sees the benefit of changing their payloads to fit on low cost rockets, and those low cost rockets are that way because of reusability.
There was a Space Shuttle payload bay that was THE standard for a few years to get into orbit.
It was a standard, but unfortunately it was oversized for the broad market.
The payload bay was 4.6m wide by 18m long, which was great for lofting space station modules, but significantly too large for being a general purpose launcher. Kind of like using a tractor trailer as a local delivery vehicle - you can, but it's impractical for small packages.
The reusable Falcon 9 addresses the broad middle part of the launch market, with a price that can also compete with smaller launchers. And for larger than average payloads the reusable Falcon Heavy is a good value too since it leverages the same reusable Falcon 9 ecosystem.
That validates the idea that the base, no-frills-at-all price of reusable (and reused) Falcon 9 is probably around $30 million, half the price of a new expendable (but otherwise base and no-frills) Falcon 9.We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).
We have even seen a price of $42M. To NASA, including five mission-unique services, for the Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.msg1967914#msg1967914
Yes, and so far that mission has NOT been identified as a ride-share mission.
Did you incorporate cost of drone ship acquisition and O&M and others transportations fees?Mr. Steven (now Ms. Tree) has a lease rate on the order of $7500 per day. Probably similar to the lease rate of a barge and tug together. So I suspect the lease price of the SpaceX flotilla (one Ms. Tree sized vehicle for each fairing half, plus a barge and tug, plus one additional support ship) to be about $10-11 million per year, perhaps much less (if SpaceX bought them and/or was able to cut a deal, like they often do). And if the support ships can do other missions in between flights, even less. Add in the price for another barge (say about $3000/day), and we're at $12 million. One-time cost of, say, a couple million per Azipod and ancillary equipment, and we're looking at about $16 million for equipping the two barges total.
Did you incorporate cost of drone ship acquisition and O&M and others transportations fees?Mr. Steven (now Ms. Tree) has a lease rate on the order of $7500 per day. Probably similar to the lease rate of a barge and tug together. So I suspect the lease price of the SpaceX flotilla (one Ms. Tree sized vehicle for each fairing half, plus a barge and tug, plus one additional support ship) to be about $10-11 million per year, perhaps much less (if SpaceX bought them and/or was able to cut a deal, like they often do). And if the support ships can do other missions in between flights, even less. Add in the price for another barge (say about $3000/day), and we're at $12 million. One-time cost of, say, a couple million per Azipod and ancillary equipment, and we're looking at about $16 million for equipping the two barges total.
For about 24 launches per year, that works out to about $500,000 per launch on average (not all will need the barges, though), plus the one-time cost of about $16 million for barge fit-out, split over several years. Pretty small compared to everything else. Let's call it $1 million added to the price of each launch to recover the booster at sea and attempt recovery of both fairing halves. The cost of the whole flotilla is MORE than paid for if all they do is recover a single fairing half.
We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).
We have even seen a price of $42M. To NASA, including five mission-unique services, for the Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.msg1967914#msg1967914
That validates the idea that the base, no-frills-at-all price of reusable (and reused) Falcon 9 is probably around $30 million, half the price of a new expendable (but otherwise base and no-frills) Falcon 9.We've already seen lower prices offered, starting at $50 million (and that without a fully net-recovered fairing... Starlink satellites can launch with a splashed fairings tho).
We have even seen a price of $42M. To NASA, including five mission-unique services, for the Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) mission.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48510.msg1967914#msg1967914
Yes, and so far that mission has NOT been identified as a ride-share mission.
Do you dislike SpaceX’ aproach to reusability?
No, I do not. We have simply chosen a starting point with a lower economic hurdle.
Tory isn't wrong, either way. It IS a waste to make a rocket so much bigger than it needs to be to launch a payload. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is NOT efficient when it comes to putting something into orbit, since it carries far more fuel than it needs just to do that. Of course, that excess fuel is then used to land the rocket. SpaceX has spent an awful lot of time, money, and energy into NOT launching things into space, but returning back to the Earth.I disagree. Falcon 9, since it can cheaply be launched as a powerful expendable rocket as well, it not inefficient. It can adjust the amount of performance devoted to recovery to the size of the payload. With a regular expendable, anything less than full performance is wasted. Additionally, because Falcon 9 is clustered (Which is almost required for orbital VTVL) and with similar stages the reduction in manufacturing needed due to reuse doesn’t have nearly as much of a negative impact on the cost-per-engine (and stage) as it would be if you had one single engine.
ULA in comparison devotes just about every ounce of rocket and fuel to delivering its payloads to orbit. They devote almost all their time, money, and energy into maximizing the amount of value they can give to their customers.
Final take - I'd say that neither side is wrong to look at their rockets / businesses the way they do.
Tory isn't wrong, either way. It IS a waste to make a rocket so much bigger than it needs to be to launch a payload.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 is NOT efficient when it comes to putting something into orbit, since it carries far more fuel than it needs just to do that. Of course, that excess fuel is then used to land the rocket.
SpaceX has spent an awful lot of time, money, and energy into NOT launching things into space, but returning back to the Earth.
ULA in comparison devotes just about every ounce of rocket and fuel to delivering its payloads to orbit. They devote almost all their time, money, and energy into maximizing the amount of value they can give to their customers.
Tory isn't wrong, either way. It IS a waste to make a rocket so much bigger than it needs to be to launch a payload. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is NOT efficient when it comes to putting something into orbit, since it carries far more fuel than it needs just to do that. Of course, that excess fuel is then used to land the rocket. SpaceX has spent an awful lot of time, money, and energy into NOT launching things into space, but returning back to the Earth.
ULA in comparison devotes just about every ounce of rocket and fuel to delivering its payloads to orbit. They devote almost all their time, money, and energy into maximizing the amount of value they can give to their customers.
Final take - I'd say that neither side is wrong to look at their rockets / businesses the way they do.
Tory isn't wrong, either way. It IS a waste to make a rocket so much bigger than it needs to be to launch a payload. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is NOT efficient when it comes to putting something into orbit, since it carries far more fuel than it needs just to do that. Of course, that excess fuel is then used to land the rocket. SpaceX has spent an awful lot of time, money, and energy into NOT launching things into space, but returning back to the Earth.
ULA in comparison devotes just about every ounce of rocket and fuel to delivering its payloads to orbit. They devote almost all their time, money, and energy into maximizing the amount of value they can give to their customers.
Final take - I'd say that neither side is wrong to look at their rockets / businesses the way they do.
Tory isn't wrong, either way. It IS a waste to make a rocket so much bigger than it needs to be to launch a payload. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is NOT efficient when it comes to putting something into orbit, since it carries far more fuel than it needs just to do that. Of course, that excess fuel is then used to land the rocket. SpaceX has spent an awful lot of time, money, and energy into NOT launching things into space, but returning back to the Earth.And this matters to a customer because?
1. I would say that for things like titanium fins, booster legs, he can predict their actual cost with accuracy of 10%. For other type of reusable hardware with accuracy of 10, 20 % (at worst 30 %).QuoteSo 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.err no he does not. He knows what it costs for ULA to do so but does not know the cost for Space X to do so. In terms of real life, a trained mechanic could keep an old car running for less cash than some else. They have the skills and tools to do the theme selves while other car owners don't. He has got no insight into the cost to make the F9 reusable or how much Space X spends on hardware.
My summary :
1. He know exactly what hardware you must add to booster to make it reusable and how much this hardware costs ?Quote2. He double down on 1st stage being just 25 %, maximum 35 % of total cost of launch.
The total cost of launch includes things that are not hardware. Elon stated that for the FI9 the first stage was 80% of hardware costs. The total cost of launch includes things like licenses, analysis for the trajectory and the payload, propellant and so on. 80% of a something that can cost millions is nothing to sneeze at.Quote3. He double down that you need at 10 reuse for you fleet in average to breakeven and that nobody ( SX ) came ever close to making of propulsive flyback economically sustainable.For ULA it might make sense for ten reuses, but there are clear reasons why it could take Space X less than that.Quote4. He suggest that SX has lot of outside investments and private money lenders, which bring total disconnect between actual prices and costs or actual prices and positive cash flow financial situation.Desperation it sounds like. Outside investors would want to take a very close look at Elon's books before investing. If they feel comfortable investing then they have kicked the tires far harder than joe on the street.
Again can anybody give at least wild guess how muchI read that F9 development cost was 900 ml$, F9R block 5 development cost was at least 900 ml$ and FH development cost was at least 500 ml$.Development of Falcon v1.0, including LC-40, was $400 million.
Development of F9 v1.1 up to and including F9R Block 5, including development of recovery-and-reuse assets such as the ASDS vehicles, as well as re-development of LC-40 after AMOS-6, and development of Merlin 1D, was ~ $1.5 billion.
Development of FH was $500 million, including FH specific GSE and launch infrastructure at LC-39A.
Other modifications to LC-39A were specific to Crew Dragon and were covered by the CCP contract (think demolition of the shuttle-era RSS, installation of Crew Access Arm, Crew Escape Systems, Reinforcing the FSS, Closing up the FSS, etc.)7. I heard that USAF also contributed to Raptor development. Did we know how much ?
$95 million.
1. I would say that for things like titanium fins, booster legs, he can predict their actual cost with accuracy of 10%. For other type of reusable hardware with accuracy of 10, 20 % (at worst 30 %).QuoteSo 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.err no he does not. He knows what it costs for ULA to do so but does not know the cost for Space X to do so. In terms of real life, a trained mechanic could keep an old car running for less cash than some else. They have the skills and tools to do the theme selves while other car owners don't. He has got no insight into the cost to make the F9 reusable or how much Space X spends on hardware.
My summary :
1. He know exactly what hardware you must add to booster to make it reusable and how much this hardware costs ?Quote2. He double down on 1st stage being just 25 %, maximum 35 % of total cost of launch.
The total cost of launch includes things that are not hardware. Elon stated that for the FI9 the first stage was 80% of hardware costs. The total cost of launch includes things like licenses, analysis for the trajectory and the payload, propellant and so on. 80% of a something that can cost millions is nothing to sneeze at.Quote3. He double down that you need at 10 reuse for you fleet in average to breakeven and that nobody ( SX ) came ever close to making of propulsive flyback economically sustainable.For ULA it might make sense for ten reuses, but there are clear reasons why it could take Space X less than that.Quote4. He suggest that SX has lot of outside investments and private money lenders, which bring total disconnect between actual prices and costs or actual prices and positive cash flow financial situation.Desperation it sounds like. Outside investors would want to take a very close look at Elon's books before investing. If they feel comfortable investing then they have kicked the tires far harder than joe on the street.
2. He said something like = Cost or rocket is about halve of cost of launch, cost of booster is about halve of cost of rocket. If you decrease your fixed operation costs and cost of rocket become 70% cost of launch, cost of booster could become maximum of 35% from cost of launch. "There is no credible math, where reusing 1stage booster can save 50% of ( total ) cost of launch."
3. Question is how much less it could be for SpaceX ( if it will be less than 10 ), I would bet 7-10 for F9R, but not 5. Why SX never said their breakeven number. TB repeating his already 5 years.
4. TB doesn't sound desperate. Quite opposite. He seems very confident, that he got everything right. How you know, that SX doesn't have billions of outside investment, private debt we don't know about. Billionaires don't want always profit for their investments. Sometimes they give money to charity. They could see investing into SX ( making humans spacefaring species ) as form of charity. EM has Larry Ellison in Tesla board, Google founders as Tesla investors, but he knows them ( tech.B) all.
Could you give me, at least wild guess how much Raptor development costed so far ? Starship/SH development ( SN1-5 ) costed so far ?
What could be unit cost for one Starlink satellite ? And what Starlink development ( including cost of launches ) could costed so far ? At least wild guess ?
1. I would say that for things like titanium fins, booster legs, he can predict their actual cost with accuracy of 10%. For other type of reusable hardware with accuracy of 10, 20 % (at worst 30 %).QuoteSo 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.err no he does not. He knows what it costs for ULA to do so but does not know the cost for Space X to do so. In terms of real life, a trained mechanic could keep an old car running for less cash than some else. They have the skills and tools to do the theme selves while other car owners don't. He has got no insight into the cost to make the F9 reusable or how much Space X spends on hardware.
My summary :
1. He know exactly what hardware you must add to booster to make it reusable and how much this hardware costs ?Quote2. He double down on 1st stage being just 25 %, maximum 35 % of total cost of launch.
The total cost of launch includes things that are not hardware. Elon stated that for the FI9 the first stage was 80% of hardware costs. The total cost of launch includes things like licenses, analysis for the trajectory and the payload, propellant and so on. 80% of a something that can cost millions is nothing to sneeze at.Quote3. He double down that you need at 10 reuse for you fleet in average to breakeven and that nobody ( SX ) came ever close to making of propulsive flyback economically sustainable.For ULA it might make sense for ten reuses, but there are clear reasons why it could take Space X less than that.Quote4. He suggest that SX has lot of outside investments and private money lenders, which bring total disconnect between actual prices and costs or actual prices and positive cash flow financial situation.Desperation it sounds like. Outside investors would want to take a very close look at Elon's books before investing. If they feel comfortable investing then they have kicked the tires far harder than joe on the street.
2. He said something like = Cost or rocket is about halve of cost of launch, cost of booster is about halve of cost of rocket. If you decrease your fixed operation costs and cost of rocket become 70% cost of launch, cost of booster could become maximum of 35% from cost of launch. "There is no credible math, where reusing 1stage booster can save 50% of ( total ) cost of launch."
3. Question is how much less it could be for SpaceX ( if it will be less than 10 ), I would bet 7-10 for F9R, but not 5. Why SX never said their breakeven number. TB repeating his already 5 years.
4. TB doesn't sound desperate. Quite opposite. He seems very confident, that he got everything right. How you know, that SX doesn't have billions of outside investment, private debt we don't know about. Billionaires don't want always profit for their investments. Sometimes they give money to charity. They could see investing into SX ( making humans spacefaring species ) as form of charity. EM has Larry Ellison in Tesla board, Google founders as Tesla investors, but he knows them ( tech.B) all.
Could you give me, at least wild guess how much Raptor development costed so far ? Starship/SH development ( SN1-5 ) costed so far ?
What could be unit cost for one Starlink satellite ? And what Starlink development ( including cost of launches ) could costed so far ? At least wild guess ?
What is the other half of launch cost if the rocket itself is only half?
I have thread about this. Look at - " Cost of launch unrelated to cost of building the rocket " - in General discussion section.1. I would say that for things like titanium fins, booster legs, he can predict their actual cost with accuracy of 10%. For other type of reusable hardware with accuracy of 10, 20 % (at worst 30 %).QuoteSo 5 days ago Tory Bruno posted some long posts on REDDIT about propulsive flyback reuse.err no he does not. He knows what it costs for ULA to do so but does not know the cost for Space X to do so. In terms of real life, a trained mechanic could keep an old car running for less cash than some else. They have the skills and tools to do the theme selves while other car owners don't. He has got no insight into the cost to make the F9 reusable or how much Space X spends on hardware.
My summary :
1. He know exactly what hardware you must add to booster to make it reusable and how much this hardware costs ?Quote2. He double down on 1st stage being just 25 %, maximum 35 % of total cost of launch.
The total cost of launch includes things that are not hardware. Elon stated that for the FI9 the first stage was 80% of hardware costs. The total cost of launch includes things like licenses, analysis for the trajectory and the payload, propellant and so on. 80% of a something that can cost millions is nothing to sneeze at.Quote3. He double down that you need at 10 reuse for you fleet in average to breakeven and that nobody ( SX ) came ever close to making of propulsive flyback economically sustainable.For ULA it might make sense for ten reuses, but there are clear reasons why it could take Space X less than that.Quote4. He suggest that SX has lot of outside investments and private money lenders, which bring total disconnect between actual prices and costs or actual prices and positive cash flow financial situation.Desperation it sounds like. Outside investors would want to take a very close look at Elon's books before investing. If they feel comfortable investing then they have kicked the tires far harder than joe on the street.
2. He said something like = Cost or rocket is about halve of cost of launch, cost of booster is about halve of cost of rocket. If you decrease your fixed operation costs and cost of rocket become 70% cost of launch, cost of booster could become maximum of 35% from cost of launch. "There is no credible math, where reusing 1stage booster can save 50% of ( total ) cost of launch."
3. Question is how much less it could be for SpaceX ( if it will be less than 10 ), I would bet 7-10 for F9R, but not 5. Why SX never said their breakeven number. TB repeating his already 5 years.
4. TB doesn't sound desperate. Quite opposite. He seems very confident, that he got everything right. How you know, that SX doesn't have billions of outside investment, private debt we don't know about. Billionaires don't want always profit for their investments. Sometimes they give money to charity. They could see investing into SX ( making humans spacefaring species ) as form of charity. EM has Larry Ellison in Tesla board, Google founders as Tesla investors, but he knows them ( tech.B) all.
Could you give me, at least wild guess how much Raptor development costed so far ? Starship/SH development ( SN1-5 ) costed so far ?
What could be unit cost for one Starlink satellite ? And what Starlink development ( including cost of launches ) could costed so far ? At least wild guess ?
What is the other half of launch cost if the rocket itself is only half?
What is the other half of launch cost if the rocket itself is only half?
What is the other half of launch cost if the rocket itself is only half?
I suspect most of that half is USAF mission assurance / paperwork cost.
I think Tory got this idea of half/half by comparing ELC cost to ELS cost. ELC is the cost-plus contract USAF used to give ULA to cover their fixed cost (i.e. non-rocket cost), ELS is the other fixed cost contract USAF used to pay for the rocket itself. If you check some recent figures like the DIVH block buy (https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-ula-1-18-billion-contract-to-complete-five-delta-4-heavy-nro-missions/), ELC and ELS is about half/half (ELC is $1.18B, ELS is $1.01B).
This is sort of true for F9 too, for example if you assume a $60M commercial mission has $10M non-rocket cost and $50M rocket cost, and for a USAF mission SpaceX adds $30M additional cost to deal with paperwork, then for the USAF mission, rocket cost vs non-rocket cost is 5:4, pretty close to half/half. Of course this is only true for USAF and some NASA missions, it's not true for commercial launches or CRS launches, definitely not true for Starlink launches.
Also I imagine SpaceX has some additional cost savings in the non-rocket cost column, for example they use horizontal integration instead of vertical integration, F9 has no hypergolic onboard, no need to deal with liquid hydrogen, etc. These would further reduce the share of non-rocket cost in total launch cost.
Finally all these discussion about share of rocket cost in total launch cost is ignoring the real problem with ULA's assessment, which is the Sowers equation itself, but that's for another post.
What is the other half of launch cost if the rocket itself is only half?
I suspect most of that half is USAF mission assurance / paperwork cost.
I think Tory got this idea of half/half by comparing ELC cost to ELS cost. ELC is the cost-plus contract USAF used to give ULA to cover their fixed cost (i.e. non-rocket cost), ELS is the other fixed cost contract USAF used to pay for the rocket itself. If you check some recent figures like the DIVH block buy (https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-ula-1-18-billion-contract-to-complete-five-delta-4-heavy-nro-missions/), ELC and ELS is about half/half (ELC is $1.18B, ELS is $1.01B).
This is sort of true for F9 too, for example if you assume a $60M commercial mission has $10M non-rocket cost and $50M rocket cost, and for a USAF mission SpaceX adds $30M additional cost to deal with paperwork, then for the USAF mission, rocket cost vs non-rocket cost is 5:4, pretty close to half/half. Of course this is only true for USAF and some NASA missions, it's not true for commercial launches or CRS launches, definitely not true for Starlink launches.
Also I imagine SpaceX has some additional cost savings in the non-rocket cost column, for example they use horizontal integration instead of vertical integration, F9 has no hypergolic onboard, no need to deal with liquid hydrogen, etc. These would further reduce the share of non-rocket cost in total launch cost.
Finally all these discussion about share of rocket cost in total launch cost is ignoring the real problem with ULA's assessment, which is the Sowers equation itself, but that's for another post.
Halve of total cost of launch is unrelated to cost of building rocket, should be true also for commercial launches, not just for NASA, UASF missions.
TB quote :
" There is no credible math that makes a reusable booster, all by itself, drop the cost of a launch service to half. "
TB said, that they have been " watching and keeping track " ( on SX F9R progress )
and their current assessment is that " 10 remains valid and that no one has come anywhere close to demonstrating these economic sustainability goals ".
Halve of total cost of launch is unrelated to cost of building rocket, should be true also for commercial launches, not just for NASA, UASF missions. Ariane 5 fly mostly to GTO comsat missions and S.Israel said something similar. Some NASA, USAF launches have lot of added costs, so cost of rocket could be even less than 50%.
TB doesn't want fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it add lot of complexity and 20% increase of payload result also in 20% increase of total cost of launch.
Atlas V doesn't use subcooling only F9R, so you must take it into account for F9R operational costs.
OK so here is whole TB post :Halve of total cost of launch is unrelated to cost of building rocket, should be true also for commercial launches, not just for NASA, UASF missions.
Why?
NASA/USAF are self-insured and fly custom, complex missions so they demand additional work which adds non-rocket cost.
Commercial customers generally fly the same mission over and over again with standardized interfaces and services, and they buy insurance so they don't have to get into the nuts and bolts of the rocket build and launch process. All of this is done purposefully to minimize costs, and it's all on the non-hardware side.
So why would you assume that "non-rocket" costs are the same for all customers?
Why do you think that non-hardware costs don't vary from customer to customer, and from provider to provider? Especially, as I pointed out above, different providers almost certainly are counting different things in the "non-rocket" costs.
TB quote :
" There is no credible math that makes a reusable booster, all by itself, drop the cost of a launch service to half. "
What if the booster is 90% of the launch cost? FH probably isn't far off that, it uses lots of boost to do high energy missions with a cheap upper stage - which means that recovering the boosters has a huge effect on the total cost.
1. Can you rationally explain why wouldn't every launch provider, not to want fly on subcooled propellant, if they can get 20 % increase of payload without any increase of cost ? ???TB said, that they have been " watching and keeping track " ( on SX F9R progress )
and their current assessment is that " 10 remains valid and that no one has come anywhere close to demonstrating these economic sustainability goals ".
It is fairly normal for hardware companies to compare the costs of their competitors. Car companies buy their competitors cars and tear them down all the time to see what they can glean.
ULA can't do that with a SpaceX Falcon 9 since the rockets are either destroyed or they are recovered by SpaceX, which means that no matter how detailed ULA does their analysis they won't have the ability to validate their assumptions.
Also, Tory Bruno reports to ULA's owners, which are Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and if ULA's owners don't want to promote reusability then Tory Bruno won't promote reusability. It is as simple as that.QuoteHalve of total cost of launch is unrelated to cost of building rocket, should be true also for commercial launches, not just for NASA, UASF missions. Ariane 5 fly mostly to GTO comsat missions and S.Israel said something similar. Some NASA, USAF launches have lot of added costs, so cost of rocket could be even less than 50%.
A good part of my career in manufacturing has been related to cost accounting, and I can tell you that while it is informative to find out the costs of things, there is no way you (or anyone else) can truly calculate the cost of a product by piecing random cost estimates together. Professionals who do that for a living have far more insight into product cost, and they don't always get it right - but when they do get it right it is because they have spent literally weeks or months doing the research.
Which is why we have to go with what we hear from SpaceX regarding costs and prices, since no one else will actually know the facts. Certainly Tory Bruno won't.QuoteTB doesn't want fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it add lot of complexity and 20% increase of payload result also in 20% increase of total cost of launch.
Where did you get the "20% increase of total cost of launch"??? SpaceX uses sub-cooled propellants and they have not raised their launch prices in years.
Plus ULA uses LH2, which is colder than sub-cooled LOX and RP-1, so they have the knowledge to handle that type of liquids. I'm not sure where you are getting these assumptions...QuoteAtlas V doesn't use subcooling only F9R, so you must take it into account for F9R operational costs.
Atlas V is a product at the end of its design life, why would they redesign it to use sub-cooled propellant? You're not making any sense.
1. Can you rationally explain why wouldn't every launch provider, not to want fly on subcooled propellant, if they can get 20 % increase of payload without any increase of cost ??
2. TB doesn't want Vulcan to fly on subcooled propellant, because it isn't worth it and it doesn't improve your cost per kilogram.
3. My point was, that if Atlas 5 don't use subcooled propellant, but F9R use it, you must take it into account, into their ratio between cost of rocket and costs unrelated to cost of building the rocket. That make perfect sense ( maybe except for you ::) ).
OK so here is whole TB post :Please provide links for such things, you have blatantly misrepresented statements from him in the past.
So you can see that he don't speak about ULA or SpaceX, but industry standards in general. If F9R booster is 70% percent of cost of rocket and SpaceX are " wildly successful such that the rocket becomes not 50%, but 70% of the cost of the launch service " = you still can save only 49 % cost of launch.You say one thing right, he was not talking about SpaceX. The estimates he provides are simply entirely wrong when it comes to SpaceX, because SpaceX simply is more efficient, and keeps excessive costs down, so the cost of launch is significantly closer to the cost of just building the hardware.
Yes for FH cost of 3 boosters could be 80-90 % cost of rocket, but FH could have also higher operation costs than F9R ( cost of subcooling with much more propellant, more expansive pad refurbishment after launch, stage/payload integration ).Envy887 specifically said launch cost, not rocket cost. As usual, you misrepresent things to further your nonsensical assertions. The costs you list here are in the range between trivial and nonexistent.
I am not saying that operational costs for NASA, USAF and commercial missions shouldn't be different.Please stop making up nonsense. It is absolutely absurd to claim that subcooling costs >$10 million dollars, the real marginal cost on a flight is negligible. Launch prices did not increase when it was introduced, on a per kg basis they decreased. There is also no evidence for the 30% number either for SpaceX, except on government missions that involve lots of extra work.
Only that even for commercial missions, cost of launch unrelated to cost of building rocket should be at best 30% = without subcooling and 50 % = with subcooling of propellant.
Again can anybody give at least wild guess how muchTry asking in a thread where those numbers are actually relevant. Development cost is simply not a factor in the equations relevant to this thread (per launch cost).
1. Raptor development,
2. Starship/SH development ( SN1-5 ),
3. Starlink development ( including cost of launches ) costed so far ? What one Starlink sat. unit cost could be ? Did SX said this ?
4. Some good estimate for outside investments into SX so far, potentially private debt if they have one ?
When we will know all of this, we could have much better better view on SX financial situation.
The problem with Mr. Bruno's assessment is that it is is static. Even if his numbers are correct, even if the benefits of reuse are not yet there, the improvement in the last three years is likely to be matched in the next three years. "Boosters can't be reused" is now "boosters can't be reused ten times," three years from now it'll be "boosters can't be reused a hundred times."They had to build Vulcan to replace Atlas due to ban on RD180. A new ELV is quickest way to achieve this and cheapest to develop with reasonable chance of staying within schedule. A RLV for ULA would've cost lot more to develop with good chance of large schedule slips.
Meanwhile ULA is burning resources building a better expendable while crossing fingers for competitors to stumble.
The problem with torturing numbers is that they will say anything to make it stop.
4. About @elonmusk's words about 80% reusability of SpaceX rockets. Russian and American experts calculated the efficiency of the reusable stages and came to the conclusion that the profit can be reached only when the stages are used 10 times. SpaceX didn't reached this rate yet.
On April 19, Dmitry Rogozin gave a big interview on KP radio, and here is the quick summary of what he said. The full text of the interview is here: roscosmos.ru/28415/
The problem with Mr. Bruno's assessment is that it is is static. Even if his numbers are correct, even if the benefits of reuse are not yet there, the improvement in the last three years is likely to be matched in the next three years. "Boosters can't be reused" is now "boosters can't be reused ten times," three years from now it'll be "boosters can't be reused a hundred times."They had to build Vulcan to replace Atlas due to ban on RD180. A new ELV is quickest way to achieve this and cheapest to develop with reasonable chance of staying within schedule. A RLV for ULA would've cost lot more to develop with good chance of large schedule slips.
Meanwhile ULA is burning resources building a better expendable while crossing fingers for competitors to stumble.
The problem with torturing numbers is that they will say anything to make it stop.
Any large schedule slips and they would be out of DoD competition due to ban on RD180.
ULA saw what SpaceX was doing just like everyone else, so they had the same lead time to compete IF they wanted to take advantage of reusability. But I don't think they want to do reusability, because that means they have to compete 1:1 with everyone else that offers reusable launchers, and competition is not something ULA does well.
1. Can you rationally explain why wouldn't every launch provider, not to want fly on subcooled propellant, if they can get 20 % increase of payload without any increase of cost ??
The business model for SpaceX is to dominate the launch market enough so that they can generate profits that allow them to invest in building the Starship, which will allow them to start the process of colonizing Mars. Colonizing Mars is why Elon Musk started SpaceX.
ULA is owned by two large public companies, and their goal is to maximize shareholder value. Until SpaceX broke the ULA launch monopoly with the U.S. Government, ULA really didn't have an incentive to lower costs. Why would they? They had a monopoly.
So why would ULA invest time and money to change a launch vehicle that they already plan to replace? It won't get them more sales, and it won't drive more profit. Why in the world would they change Atlas V at this point?Quote2. TB doesn't want Vulcan to fly on subcooled propellant, because it isn't worth it and it doesn't improve your cost per kilogram.
Unless you understand ULA's business model, you won't understand their engineering choices. And I don't think you fully understand ULA's business model - how they want to make money, and where they do and don't want to compete.Quote3. My point was, that if Atlas 5 don't use subcooled propellant, but F9R use it, you must take it into account, into their ratio between cost of rocket and costs unrelated to cost of building the rocket. That make perfect sense ( maybe except for you ::) ).
Sub-cooled propellants are not a big cost driver. The cost of the propellant itself for a Falcon 9 is about $200K, or about 0.3% of the total launch price. That is a rounding error when comparing the costs between two rockets.
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :o
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it
3. Of course it is not about cost of propellant. It is about operating costs of all of this subcooling hardware, that you need for subcooling LOX on 1st stage and 2stage and cooling RP1 to about -10 Celsius. Not sure if LH2 could be subcooled, but CH4 could be and SpaceX plan subcool both CH4 and LOX for Starship/SH.
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :o
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it. They will simple use solid rocket boosters instead. Each solid booster cost about 6 million$. 20% increase of payload for Vulcan is equal to 3 or 4 boosters so about 18 to 24 million$. So again, if they can instead of adding 3,4 boosters ( cost 18 - 24 ml$ ), use subcooled propellant, which you think is FREE ::), why wouldn't they use it ?
I certainly don't remember subcooling increasing performance by 20%, that sounds way too high.
If you are designing a new rocket then you can just size it accordingly to give you the performance required without subcooling. And if your rocket can already handle all the orbits and payloads required, there is no point in adding subcooling to increase payload when there is no need for it.
I certainly don't remember subcooling increasing performance by 20%, that sounds way too high.
1. Can you rationally explain why wouldn't every launch provider, not to want fly on subcooled propellant, if they can get 20 % increase of payload without any increase of cost ??
The business model for SpaceX is to dominate the launch market enough so that they can generate profits that allow them to invest in building the Starship, which will allow them to start the process of colonizing Mars. Colonizing Mars is why Elon Musk started SpaceX.
ULA is owned by two large public companies, and their goal is to maximize shareholder value. Until SpaceX broke the ULA launch monopoly with the U.S. Government, ULA really didn't have an incentive to lower costs. Why would they? They had a monopoly.
So why would ULA invest time and money to change a launch vehicle that they already plan to replace? It won't get them more sales, and it won't drive more profit. Why in the world would they change Atlas V at this point?Quote2. TB doesn't want Vulcan to fly on subcooled propellant, because it isn't worth it and it doesn't improve your cost per kilogram.
Unless you understand ULA's business model, you won't understand their engineering choices. And I don't think you fully understand ULA's business model - how they want to make money, and where they do and don't want to compete.Quote3. My point was, that if Atlas 5 don't use subcooled propellant, but F9R use it, you must take it into account, into their ratio between cost of rocket and costs unrelated to cost of building the rocket. That make perfect sense ( maybe except for you ::) ).
Sub-cooled propellants are not a big cost driver. The cost of the propellant itself for a Falcon 9 is about $200K, or about 0.3% of the total launch price. That is a rounding error when comparing the costs between two rockets.
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :o
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it. They will simple use solid rocket boosters instead. Each solid booster cost about 6 million$. 20% increase of payload for Vulcan is equal to 3 or 4 boosters so about 18 to 24 million$. So again, if they can instead of adding 3,4 boosters ( cost 18 - 24 ml$ ), use subcooled propellant, which you think is FREE ::), why wouldn't they use it ?
They can fly Vulcan without any subcooling and solids for smaller payloads, they can fly it with subcooling for medium - heavy payloads and for really heavy payloads, they can use both subcooling + add only two solids (instead of 6) .
3. Of course it is not about cost of propellant. It is about operating costs of all of this subcooling hardware, that you need for subcooling LOX on 1st stage and 2stage and cooling RP1 to about -10 Celsius. Not sure if LH2 could be subcooled, but CH4 could be and SpaceX plan subcool both CH4 and LOX for Starship/SH.
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :o
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it. They will simple use solid rocket boosters instead. Each solid booster cost about 6 million$. 20% increase of payload for Vulcan is equal to 3 or 4 boosters so about 18 to 24 million$. So again, if they can instead of adding 3,4 boosters ( cost 18 - 24 ml$ ), use subcooled propellant, which you think is FREE ::), why wouldn't they use it ?
They can fly Vulcan without any subcooling and solids for smaller payloads, they can fly it with subcooling for medium - heavy payloads and for really heavy payloads, they can use both subcooling + add only two solids (instead of 6) .
3. Of course it is not about cost of propellant. It is about operating costs of all of this subcooling hardware, that you need for subcooling LOX on 1st stage and 2stage and cooling RP1 to about -10 Celsius. Not sure if LH2 could be subcooled, but CH4 could be and SpaceX plan subcool both CH4 and LOX for Starship/SH.
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :oYou appear to have answered your own question.
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it. They will simple use solid rocket boosters instead. Each solid booster cost about 6 million$. 20% increase of payload for Vulcan is equal to 3 or 4 boosters so about 18 to 24 million$. So again, if they can instead of adding 3,4 boosters ( cost 18 - 24 ml$ ), use subcooled propellant, which you think is FREE ::), why wouldn't they use it ?
3. Of course it is not about cost of propellant. It is about operating costs of all of this subcooling hardware, that you need for subcooling LOX on 1st stage and 2stage and cooling RP1 to about -10 Celsius. Not sure if LH2 could be subcooled, but CH4 could be and SpaceX plan subcool both CH4 and LOX for Starship/SH.
Also from Falcon 9's experience with sub-cooled propellant, you can't fly without subcooling if the vehicle is already designed for sub-cooling, so your idea that just adding sub-cooling for some missions wouldn't work.
Question.....Actually the subcooling shrinks the propellant, so the pump pumps less volume than expected.
I thought that if it wasn't designed for subcooled prop...you can't use subcooled prop due to the pump not designed to take the higher mass flow. If it was designed for subcooled prop...you can use either...you would just have less mass flow with warmer prop and thus less thrust.
Actually the subcooling shrinks the propellant, so the pump pumps less volume than expected.
But the use is sub cooled propellants is tricky.
...
Launch rate, on the other hand, is a really big lever on cost because it spreads out the fixed costs.
So... Intuition can be deceptive in this situation."
Only that even for commercial missions, cost of launch unrelated to cost of building rocket should be at best 30% = without subcooling and 50 % = with subcooling of propellant.
Also from Falcon 9's experience with sub-cooled propellant, you can't fly without subcooling if the vehicle is already designed for sub-cooling, so your idea that just adding sub-cooling for some missions wouldn't work.
Question.....
I thought that if it wasn't designed for subcooled prop...you can't use subcooled prop due to the pump not designed to take the higher mass flow. If it was designed for subcooled prop...you can use either...you would just have less mass flow with warmer prop and thus less thrust.
Doesn't sub-cooled propellant allow for more overall fuel to be carried so enough is left for landing the booster?
Doesn't sub-cooled propellant allow for more overall fuel to be carried so enough is left for landing the booster?
1. So you didn't rationally explain anything. What I know nobody from main launch providers ( ULA, Blue origin, Arianespace, Chinese, Russians, Indians ) except of SX didn't confirm, that they plan to fly their launchers on subcooled propellant. If subcooling of propellant can increase their launchers payload by 20 % without any added costs, why wouldn't they use it ? :o
2. Tory Bruno said, that they don't plan to fly Vulcan on subcooled propellant, because it means lot of added complexity and payload increase is not good enough for them to be worth it. They will simple use solid rocket boosters instead. Each solid booster cost about 6 million$. 20% increase of payload for Vulcan is equal to 3 or 4 boosters so about 18 to 24 million$. So again, if they can instead of adding 3,4 boosters ( cost 18 - 24 ml$ ), use subcooled propellant, which you think is FREE ::), why wouldn't they use it ?
You're really focused on this subcooled propellant thing, aren't you? ;D
1. Yes, using subcooled kerosene+LOX adds some complexity and some cost. But it is far less complex (and costly) than anything related to liquid hydrogen handling. As ULA are already using hydrogen on their upper stages, the benefit of adding subcooled kerolox (or methalox) on just the first stage is not as great as it was SpaceX with their all kerolox launcher.
2. Using subcooled propellants has implications on your engine - it may require modification to use it. (dealing with the increased mass flow and cooler temperatures) SpaceX was able to modify their M1D engine to do so - doing the same modifications throughan exterior engine supplier is more costly, and there may be technical reasons why doing it with the RD-180 and BE-4 is not worth the added cost - for ULA.
3. SpaceX is a pioneer when it comes to using subcooled propellants, so it makes sense that others have not jumped at using the idea... yet. But I would not be surprised if the next announced Chinese, Indian, or European launch vehicle will use it - if it makes sense for them.
4. SpaceX uses subcooled propellants, and kept using it beyond their initial teething issues with it, and plan on using it with future launch vehicles, so obviously the cost/complexity/performance trade-offs makes sense for them. Either you accept that or you believe that there is some dark conspiracy where SpaceX doing it... sh*ts and giggles to waste money? ???
So at this point, maybe you should realize that what Tory Bruno tweets is not the absolute truth for the industry as a whole, but from his perspective at ULA?
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
...
Launch rate, on the other hand, is a really big lever on cost because it spreads out the fixed costs.
So... Intuition can be deceptive in this situation."
And how do you think one increases flight rate?
Reuse enables a higher flight rate with the same fixed infrastructure costs, which allows spreading those costs over more flights, which lowers the price point, which allows capturing more market share, which enables a higher flight rate, which...
It's a virtuous cycle, but you need some advantage to leverage at the beginning. SpaceX's initial advantage was actually not reuse but their very lean, vertically integrated business structure with low overhead costs. Now they have the advantages of BOTH reuse and a trim operation. Competitors can't afford to ignore reuse if they want be viable in the commercial market.QuoteOnly that even for commercial missions, cost of launch unrelated to cost of building rocket should be at best 30% = without subcooling and 50 % = with subcooling of propellant.
Subcooling is an operational headache that reduces flexibility and increases the need for tight timing at launch. That's why other operators have tried it and abandoned it, or looked at it and decided against it. It has little to do with cost.
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
To keep repeating something does not make it true. Please, a source for that 20%. 20% of what, by the way? fixed cost, static cost? Once the chiller is bought you only need to pay maintenance. So it shouldnt be the static amount per rocket, or it should get lower the more you fly.
Why 20%? Where does it come from? I highly doubt your numbers.
@darknelnet appears to think that the cost of launch is equal to the cost of the fuel, otherwise the *20% cost figure makes literally no sense.
Of course, that us not true, fuel cost is a tiny fraction of launch cost, even with reuse to the level SpaceX has demonstrated.
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
To keep repeating something does not make it true. Please, a source for that 20%. 20% of what, by the way? fixed cost, static cost? Once the chiller is bought you only need to pay maintenance. So it shouldnt be the static amount per rocket, or it should get lower the more you fly.
Why 20%? Where does it come from? I highly doubt your numbers.
Common sense. I explained already in detail why. Total cost of launch.
Said that it should be about 20, not exactly 20%. Explain why nobody except F9R don't used it and give me proof, that it is much less than 20.
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
To keep repeating something does not make it true. Please, a source for that 20%. 20% of what, by the way? fixed cost, static cost? Once the chiller is bought you only need to pay maintenance. So it shouldnt be the static amount per rocket, or it should get lower the more you fly.
Why 20%? Where does it come from? I highly doubt your numbers.
Common sense. I explained already in detail why. Total cost of launch.
Said that it should be about 20, not exactly 20%. Explain why nobody except F9R don't used it and give me proof, that it is much less than 20.
1. Subcooling of propellant should result in 20% increase of payload ( and total cost of launch ) for every rocket.
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
To keep repeating something does not make it true. Please, a source for that 20%. 20% of what, by the way? fixed cost, static cost? Once the chiller is bought you only need to pay maintenance. So it shouldnt be the static amount per rocket, or it should get lower the more you fly.
Why 20%? Where does it come from? I highly doubt your numbers.
Common sense. I explained already in detail why. Total cost of launch.
Said that it should be about 20, not exactly 20%. Explain why nobody except F9R don't used it and give me proof, that it is much less than 20.
Propellant subcooling is done by passing the propellants through a heat exchanger filled with a boiling refrigerant, like LN2 or liquid air. The only operational cost associated with it maintenance of chiller, which is just a tank, some valves, and a heat exchanger, plus the cost of the boiled LN2 as it's probably cheaper to vent and replace than to capture and rechill.
Common sense. I explained already in detail why. Total cost of launch.
Said that it should be about 20, not exactly 20%. Explain why nobody except F9R don't used it and give me proof, that it is much less than 20.
Propellant subcooling is done by passing the propellants through a heat exchanger filled with a boiling refrigerant, like LN2 or liquid air. The only operational cost associated with it maintenance of chiller, which is just a tank, some valves, and a heat exchanger, plus the cost of the boiled LN2 as it's probably cheaper to vent and replace than to capture and rechill.
Yes, see e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071 (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071)
The other option is to pass the LOx through a reservoir where a vacuum pump sucks down the pressure in the ullage volume such that through the evaporation of a part of the LOx the remainder is subcooled through the evaporation enthalpy being taken away from the liquid phase. See e.g. the image below, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431116328721
If I had to bet (and without google-ing around now) I would assume SpaceX has a system akin to the vacuum pump design. It would explain the copious amount of boil-off "clouds" produced during tanking operations emanating from the launch umbilical mast.
That was my pointQuoteBut the use is sub cooled propellants is tricky.
Indeed. :)
Not any trickier than most other things in rocketry, though, probably less tricky in many cases, but you can't just drop it into any random rocket and expect things to magically improve.
Yes. For a kerolox rocket running running the LOX through an LN2 will get it within a couple of degrees of the normal BP of LN2. It's pretty straightforward and LN2 is very cheap but IIRC SX said they go lower than this so I suspect your right they are doing it another way.
Yes, see e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071 (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071)
The other option is to pass the LOx through a reservoir where a vacuum pump sucks down the pressure in the ullage volume such that through the evaporation of a part of the LOx the remainder is subcooled through the evaporation enthalpy being taken away from the liquid phase. See e.g. the image below, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431116328721
If I had to bet (and without google-ing around now) I would assume SpaceX has a system akin to the vacuum pump design. It would explain the copious amount of boil-off "clouds" produced during tanking operations emanating from the launch umbilical mast.
Yes. For a kerolox rocket running running the LOX through an LN2 will get it within a couple of degrees of the normal BP of LN2. It's pretty straightforward and LN2 is very cheap but IIRC SX said they go lower than this so I suspect your right they are doing it another way.
Yes, see e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071 (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4707071)
The other option is to pass the LOx through a reservoir where a vacuum pump sucks down the pressure in the ullage volume such that through the evaporation of a part of the LOx the remainder is subcooled through the evaporation enthalpy being taken away from the liquid phase. See e.g. the image below, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431116328721
If I had to bet (and without google-ing around now) I would assume SpaceX has a system akin to the vacuum pump design. It would explain the copious amount of boil-off "clouds" produced during tanking operations emanating from the launch umbilical mast.
IIRC the method developed for sub cooling LH2 for the X33 programme used an LH2/LH2 heat exchanger with a vacuum pump to suck out the boil off. Similar principle but it keeps the propellant being loaded physically separate from the propellant being cooled. that said LH2 is exceptionally tricky to deal with.
If you pull a bit of a vacuum on the LN2 it goes colder than the normal BP, and the LOX can stay high pressure so you don't have to deal with repressurizing to get it into the rocket.Yes the same tactic the X33 programme used could just as easily be run with LN2 in the chamber and a LOX cooling coil.
They might use that, I haven't seen a definitive explanation of their system. The reason I suspect they use the HX is that the LOX needs to be a bit above ambient in order to get it into the FalconStorage tank would have to be quite a bit above ambient to get propellent to the second stage tanks something like 50 m above ground level.
This publication is not meant to challenge the #SpaceX achievements that we certainly recognize. We want to know more about reusability economics based on Falcon-9. We admit that our analytics may be limited and would appreciate any comments from @SpaceX and @elonmusk
This publication is not meant to challenge the SpaceX achievements that we certainly recognize. We just wanted to have a better understanding, by the example of Falcon-9, how reusability economics can work. We admit that our analytics may not be quite correct and would appreciate any comments from #SpaceX and #ElonMusk on this topic.
REUSABILITY: IS IT REALLY THAT COST EFFECTIVE?
On March 31, 2017, SpaceX re-launched the 1st stage of the Falcon 9 rocket as part of the commercial launch of the SES-10 geostationary satellite, which had previously flown with the Dragon cargo vehicle to the ISS under SpaceX's CRS contract with NASA.
The space community has continued to debate ever since about the real economic benefit of the re-use (and in the future- multiple use) of LV hardware.
Let us refer to the figures that were announced by top managers of SpaceX-Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk. We know that:
1. SpaceX spent at least $1 billion to develop the reusability technology.
2. The cost of refurbishing the 1st stage after the flight is substantially less than half the cost of a new 1st stage; and the cost of the Falcon 9 payload fairing is $6 million.
3. The 1st stage of Falcon 9 costs 70%, and the remaining 30% of the cost of all the hardware fall on the 2nd stage and payload fairing.
The following prices are offered to a customer on the SpaceX official website: $62 million for the Falcon 9 launch and $90 million for the launch of Falcon Heavy. However, there are a couple of reservations: the payload mass to GTO for Falcon 9 shall not exceed 5.5 tons, and the mass of the Falcon Heavy payload shall not exceed 8 tons. The proposed LV configurations imply the recovery of the 1st stage units, which significantly reduces the LV performance as compared with a configuration without re-usable 1st stages (the maximum payload capacity of Falcon 9 to GTO is 8.3 tons and 26.7 tons for Falcon Heavy).
We believe that the share of the launch support cost should not be more than 30-35% of the launch service cost, that is, the remainder falls on the Falcon 9 hardware, which cost does not exceed $40.3 million (while the launch service price is $62 million). If we return to what was said by Shotwell (The first stage accounts for roughly 70% of the hardware costs of a Falcon 9 launch), we get the cost of the Falcon 9 1st stage at the level of $28.2 million, and the cost of the 2nd stage and payload fairing combined as no more than $12.1 million. Knowing that the payload fairing cost amounts to $6 million, it turns out that no more than $6.1 million remains for the 2nd stage and the payload means of adaptation. In this case, the 2nd stage of Falcon 9 is less expensive than the payload fairing, and 30% of the cost of the 2nd stage hardware and payload fairing is almost equally divided between them, and that contradicts the Shotwell's words: the second stage and fairing split the remainder of the hardware cost, not quite even.
All this suggests that, most likely, reusability from an economic perspective works differently.
For a better understanding of the prices and figures, let us refer to the real value of the contracts that were signed by SpaceX with NASA and the US Air Force.
On February 5, 2020, NASA announced a contract with SpaceX worth $80.4 million for the launch of the PACE spacecraft (launch weight - 1.7 tons, 676 km SSO) on a Falcon 9 LV using previously-flown first stage booster. If to subtract all launch related costs (35% of the launch service cost) from the total contract launch service price of $80.4 million, it turns out that, for NASA, the hardware of Falcon 9 LV with a reusable 1st stage costs $52.3 million. So how much is the reusable Falcon 9 hardware really worth: $52.3 million or $40.3 million?
Also, on March 7, 2020, the news was published that SpaceX and the US Air Force made a deal worth $297 million for 3 missions including two Falcon 9 missions and one launch of the Falcon Heavy launcher. Reasoning about the average price of a launch service under this contract, let us refer to prices specified on the SpaceX website: Price of Falcon 9 launch service is $62 million, price of Falcon Heavy mission is $90 million. Using the proportion, we can calculate that the cost of Falcon Heavy launch service is equal to the cost of 1.5 Falcon 9 launches. We conclude that on average, within the framework of this contract, the Falcon 9 launch service costs $84.9 million, and the Falcon Heavy mission costs $127.2 million, from which applying the above logic we arrive at the Falcon 9 hardware cost of $55.2 million.
Two questions arise: If SpaceX manufactures new LVs under this contract, is this the real cost of the new hardware of both types of LVs, respectively? If previously-flown hardware is supposed to be used for the USAF missions, then why the cost of launch services is not $62 million and $90 million, respectively?
If we look at the reusability economy from a different angle, we will open up interesting conclusions which, in terms of price indicators and SpaceX executives’ statements, look more realistic than the prices quoted on the company's website.
To reuse the rocket hardware, it is necessary to manufacture it at the full cost, and then sell it either for the same price, mindful of the plans to use it several times (and it’s important not to forget to recoup investments made in the rocket development, as well as costs of hardware repair and refurbishment), or apply a different pattern which is safer for business. In the second case, one of the launch customers must pay SpaceX the maximum or full price for the Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy hardware, as was done in the case of the SES-10 launch. NASA paid for the delivery of cargo to the ISS aboard a new Falcon 9 LV. The first stage was returned and reused to provide a commercial launch service for the SES-10 satellite.
How much did NASA pay for launches to the ISS? The 2018 FAA Report shows that, under CRS to ISS contracts, NASA paid SpaceX $ 3.7 billion for 23 launches to deliver cargo to the ISS up to 2024. This means that NASA pays an average of $160.9 million for the launch service. Using the same proportion as above, we conclude that the Falcon launch vehicle hardware plus a price of Dragon space vehicle costs $104.5 million. We do not know for sure how much the Dragon cargo hardware costs; but let’s suppose (by expert assessment and based on some open materials) that its price is about $40 million within one mission.
So the conclusion we draw is that the hardware of the rocket first and second stages costs $64.5 million. If we add to this amount the cost of a payload fairing ($ 6 million) and the minimum cost of the payload adaptation system ($1 million), we arrive at the cost of the entire newly manufactured Falcon 9 launch vehicle of $71.5 million, suitable for the launch of a spacecraft. Back to Shotwell's words: The first stage accounts for roughly 70% of the hardware costs of a Falcon 9 launch. Thus, for NASA, the new first stage costs $50 million.
So, we get the following statistics: for the domestic market, prices of the same hardware for NASA and the US Air Force are different (although they are close), while these hardware prices are significantly higher than the selling price established by SpaceX for the international market as part of commercial launch services.
Given that NASA has funded SpaceX in total for more than $7 billion, as part of the contracts for the development of technologies and ensuring the delivery of cargo and astronauts to the ISS, it can be concluded that the reusability technology, as of today, from the perspective of economics, is justified only if there is an anchor launch services customer on the domestic market (in the case of SpaceX, these are NASA and the US Air Force), who is ready to pay the maximum or full cost for the LV hardware, part of which will then be reused as part of commercial launch services on the foreign market.
After recent Russian skepticism about SpaceX costs, this:
[...]
"it can be concluded that the reusability technology, as of today, from the perspective of economics, is justified only if there is an anchor launch services customer on the domestic market (in the case of SpaceX, these are NASA and the US Air Force), who is ready to pay the maximum or full cost for the LV hardware, part of which will then be reused as part of commercial launch services on the foreign market."
I'm not really sure why they expect SpaceX to do their homework for them - Whatever they say will just be believed to be lies anyway.
And as envy887 writes, there appears to be an almost intentional effort to not understand why DoD and some NASA missions have extra price tags.
But if all you have is a hammer in your argument toolbox, you will hit everything with a hammer. And in this case the hammer is: "SpaceX is subsidized by NASA and DoD".
You need to add running costs of SpaceX Navy to reuse costs.After recent Russian skepticism about SpaceX costs, this:
[...]
If SpaceX spent $1 billion learning how to reuse rockets and their launch prices remain otherwise unaffected, the cost of developing reuse should be fully recovered inside of 34 launches, regardless of how many times a given stage can be flown.
You need to add running costs of SpaceX Navy to reuse costs.After recent Russian skepticism about SpaceX costs, this:
[...]
If SpaceX spent $1 billion learning how to reuse rockets and their launch prices remain otherwise unaffected, the cost of developing reuse should be fully recovered inside of 34 launches, regardless of how many times a given stage can be flown.
Initially I feel like that's quite a bit of a stretch. Now looking over my launch spreadsheet, I don't think it holds water at all. Of the recovered Falcon 9 rockets that went on to fly again, almost exactly half have had first launches that were commercial launches: 12 NASA / govt to 11 commercial.Indeed.
You need to add running costs of SpaceX Navy to reuse costs.I like that. Like all large aerospace companies it's already got a standing army of staff. :)
So yes using subcooled propellant increase your payload ( and cost ) by 20%.
To keep repeating something does not make it true. Please, a source for that 20%. 20% of what, by the way? fixed cost, static cost? Once the chiller is bought you only need to pay maintenance. So it shouldnt be the static amount per rocket, or it should get lower the more you fly.
Why 20%? Where does it come from? I highly doubt your numbers.
Common sense. I explained already in detail why. Total cost of launch.
Said that it should be about 20, not exactly 20%. Explain why nobody except F9R don't used it and give me proof, that it is much less than 20.
Propellant subcooling is done by passing the propellants through a heat exchanger filled with a boiling refrigerant, like LN2 or liquid air. The only operational cost associated with it maintenance of chiller, which is just a tank, some valves, and a heat exchanger, plus the cost of the boiled LN2 as it's probably cheaper to vent and replace than to capture and rechill.
LN2 or liquid air costs $0.1 to $1 per kg in bulk, and boiling 1 kg of LN2 will chill about 5 kg of kerolox, and F9 uses 500 t of kerolox per launch, so the LN2 cost is $10k to $100k. Maintaining some simple valves and tanks will not cost more than a few million per year or a ~$100k per launch. So the cost of subcooling is somewhere from around $50k to around $200k. That's at most 0.3% of the list price of an F9 launch.
The idea that subcooling cost is 20% of the launch service has absolutely no rational basis in reality. It's off by multiple orders of magnitude.
Subcooling is not more widely used because it imposes harsh limits (like load-and-go) on launch flexibility. Cost is not a driver.
1. Subcooling of propellant should result in 20% increase of payload ( and total cost of launch ) for every rocket.
You keep stating this like it is a fact, yet you refuse to show where your numbers come from.
If this is your opinion then you need to be clear about that, since otherwise you appear to making this number up just to spread FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt).
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
SpaceX never speak about this in detail and never offered real evidence that F9R have any real cost savings so far.
SpaceX never speak about this in detail and never offered real evidence that F9R have any real cost savings so far.
They have reduced their prices. Of course reuse is far from the only way to reduce prices, but personally I believe SpaceX when they say reuse has enabled cost (and thus price) reduction.
On a separate point, I don’t think the recent Merlin failure due to residual cleaning fluid igniting tells us anything useful about how many flights a booster can make. They just need to take more care whenever such cleaning is required (which could be on every reuse for all we know).
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
Where Russians admitted that F9R 1stage booster reuse saving the money ? Can you give me a quote ?
1. Subcooling of LOX and cooling of RP1 on F9R 1st and 2st stage should result with increase of payload by 20 %. That was confirmed also by SX.
If you could increase your payload by 20%, without any increase of total cost per launch, your final cost per kilogram should become better by 20 %.
Right know there is so competitive launch market, that even 20 % lower cost per kilogram could make big difference ( TB confirmed this on REDDIT ). Even make your commercial launch competitor goes bankrupt. ULA or others launch providers risk aversion are hardly good enough reason, not try to have 20 % decrease of cost per kilogram for free.
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
Where Russians admitted that F9R 1stage booster reuse saving the money ? Can you give me a quote ?
It's just a few post above mine: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.msg2074403#msg2074403, I'm attaching the conclusion part here which shows by their estimate SpaceX saves up to 50% of the hardware cost when they reuse a F9 first stage from ISS cargo mission.
But the Russians are not the only one who starts to realize reusability saves money, ESA had a similar conclusion and is designing Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9, the Japanese and Chinese are also working on reuse.
Finally RocketLab's Peter Beck said he only need 2 launches to break even:
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1251634905747910656
Given pretty much everybody is working on reuse, by your own logic it means reuse saves money, ULA is the outlier here.
1. Subcooling of LOX and cooling of RP1 on F9R 1st and 2st stage should result with increase of payload by 20 %. That was confirmed also by SX.
Seriously? You just admitted below that the 20% number "It is just my opinion" (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.msg2074621#msg2074621), here you say it's confirmed by SpaceX, so which is it? Your opinion or from SpaceX?QuoteIf you could increase your payload by 20%, without any increase of total cost per launch, your final cost per kilogram should become better by 20 %.
Right know there is so competitive launch market, that even 20 % lower cost per kilogram could make big difference ( TB confirmed this on REDDIT ). Even make your commercial launch competitor goes bankrupt. ULA or others launch providers risk aversion are hardly good enough reason, not try to have 20 % decrease of cost per kilogram for free.
First of all, nobody said subcooling is free, just that the cost increase is very small. Also subcooling has drawbacks not directly related to cost, it puts severe limit on the launch window, this is something launch providers will need to consider when deciding whether to use subcooling.
Secondly, the launch market competition is not based on cost per kilogram since customers rarely uses the maximum performance. For example:
Rocket A: No subcooling, 10t to LEO, sell for $50M.
Rocket B: Subcooling, 12t to LEO, sell for $50M + $0.5M for subcooling = $50.5M
For a customer with a payload between 1 to 10t, the subcooling makes no difference to him, he'll choose Rocket A since it's cheaper, it doesn't matter Rocket B's cost per kilogram is better since that's not a metric the customer cares.
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
Where Russians admitted that F9R 1stage booster reuse saving the money ? Can you give me a quote ?
It's just a few post above mine: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.msg2074403#msg2074403, I'm attaching the conclusion part here which shows by their estimate SpaceX saves up to 50% of the hardware cost when they reuse a F9 first stage from ISS cargo mission.
But the Russians are not the only one who starts to realize reusability saves money, ESA had a similar conclusion and is designing Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9, the Japanese and Chinese are also working on reuse.
Finally RocketLab's Peter Beck said he only need 2 launches to break even:
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1251634905747910656
Given pretty much everybody is working on reuse, by your own logic it means reuse saves money, ULA is the outlier here.
1. Electron is only very small rocket and will use parachutes recovery similar to SMART. Tory Bruno said also 2, 3 for SMART reuse so it could be truth.
2. It is great that ESA, Chinese, Japanese will try 1stage or full reusability. It is much cooler than just SMART and ACES. But that doesn't mean, that it will bring more cost savings, than component modular reuse or ACES IFV in space reuse. ULA right know, cares more only about costs savings, not a prestige. Also not sure, if Ariane next will use propulsive flyback for booster reuse or Adeline modular reuse or glide back booster reuse. They probably don't decide it yet.
3. Ok. So they save 50% of their hardware costs, but cost of hardware could be only halve of cost of launch. You must take into account also large weight penalty ( 22.8 vs 15.6 ) and of course refurbishment costs, before you could reflight used booster. Also F9R booster could cost more to build, than original expendable F9 1st booster. You must take all this things into account.
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
Where Russians admitted that F9R 1stage booster reuse saving the money ? Can you give me a quote ?
It's just a few post above mine: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.msg2074403#msg2074403, I'm attaching the conclusion part here which shows by their estimate SpaceX saves up to 50% of the hardware cost when they reuse a F9 first stage from ISS cargo mission.
But the Russians are not the only one who starts to realize reusability saves money, ESA had a similar conclusion and is designing Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9, the Japanese and Chinese are also working on reuse.
Finally RocketLab's Peter Beck said he only need 2 launches to break even:
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1251634905747910656
Given pretty much everybody is working on reuse, by your own logic it means reuse saves money, ULA is the outlier here.
1. Electron is only very small rocket and will use parachutes recovery similar to SMART. Tory Bruno said also 2, 3 for SMART reuse so it could be truth.
2. It is great that ESA, Chinese, Japanese will try 1stage or full reusability. It is much cooler than just SMART and ACES. But that doesn't mean, that it will bring more cost savings, than component modular reuse or ACES IFV in space reuse. ULA right know, cares more only about costs savings, not a prestige. Also not sure, if Ariane next will use propulsive flyback for booster reuse or Adeline modular reuse or glide back booster reuse. They probably don't decide it yet.
3. Ok. So they save 50% of their hardware costs, but cost of hardware could be only halve of cost of launch. You must take into account also large weight penalty ( 22.8 vs 15.6 ) and of course refurbishment costs, before you could reflight used booster. Also F9R booster could cost more to build, than original expendable F9 1st booster. You must take all this things into account.
Well if you’re right SpaceX will soon be found out as their current practice will clearly not be sustainable. You can only fly at a loss for so long. So any day now ULA should have their monopoly back. No need to innovate. Just need to give it a bit more time and all will be well again...
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
Where Russians admitted that F9R 1stage booster reuse saving the money ? Can you give me a quote ?
It's just a few post above mine: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.msg2074403#msg2074403, I'm attaching the conclusion part here which shows by their estimate SpaceX saves up to 50% of the hardware cost when they reuse a F9 first stage from ISS cargo mission.
But the Russians are not the only one who starts to realize reusability saves money, ESA had a similar conclusion and is designing Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9, the Japanese and Chinese are also working on reuse.
Finally RocketLab's Peter Beck said he only need 2 launches to break even:
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1251634905747910656
Given pretty much everybody is working on reuse, by your own logic it means reuse saves money, ULA is the outlier here.
1. Electron is only very small rocket and will use parachutes recovery similar to SMART. Tory Bruno said also 2, 3 for SMART reuse so it could be truth.
2. It is great that ESA, Chinese, Japanese will try 1stage or full reusability. It is much cooler than just SMART and ACES. But that doesn't mean, that it will bring more cost savings, than component modular reuse or ACES IFV in space reuse. ULA right know, cares more only about costs savings, not a prestige. Also not sure, if Ariane next will use propulsive flyback for booster reuse or Adeline modular reuse or glide back booster reuse. They probably don't decide it yet.
3. Ok. So they save 50% of their hardware costs, but cost of hardware could be only halve of cost of launch. You must take into account also large weight penalty ( 22.8 vs 15.6 ) and of course refurbishment costs, before you could reflight used booster. Also F9R booster could cost more to build, than original expendable F9 1st booster. You must take all this things into account.
Well if you’re right SpaceX will soon be found out as their current practice will clearly not be sustainable. You can only fly at a loss for so long. So any day now ULA should have their monopoly back. No need to innovate. Just need to give it a bit more time and all will be well again...
2. In very competitive launch market cost per kilogram will matter and everybody will try to use their launchers at full capacity. Still any from new or planned launchers except F9R or SS/SH, don't plan so far use subcooling for their launchers. Not even BO with New Glenn.Cost per launch matters, not cost per kg.
Guys, do not pay attention.Quarantine is everywhere now.But Rogozin demands to show ebullient activity.So,here Ms. Barashkova from GK Launch Services is trying to please..In the Soviet Union, it was called "Замылить шары" (Throw dust in the eyes).
But sometimes you have to point out why arguments are absurd.This topic is about reusability effects.At a recent press conference, one dude from SpaceX said that the production cost of Falcon-9 is lower than $ 30 million(as I heard 28 $ million).It's irrational, I'm sorry. But the whole experience of my life tells me to believe this dude and not to Ms. Barashkova from GK Launch Services .SpaceX suggests a propulsive landing. This is the right way.It's hard to improve something else here.But I remember that Elon had an extraordinary promise.After landing to the barge, the booster was supposed to refuel there and fly to the launch site on its own. ;)
But I remember that Elon had an extraordinary promise.After landing to the barge, the booster was supposed to refuel there and fly to the launch site on its own. ;)That is quite extraordinary.
But I remember that Elon had an extraordinary promise.After landing to the barge, the booster was supposed to refuel there and fly to the launch site on its own. ;)That is quite extraordinary.
Do you recall where you saw it?
OTOH it does take about 3 days to get the stage back to port. That's a lot of time if you're really serious about cutting turnaround time.
The other option is to begin inspection & refurb on route. I'd be surprised if they weren't doing some of this already.
QuoteBut sometimes you have to point out why arguments are absurd.This topic is about reusability effects.At a recent press conference, one dude from SpaceX said that the production cost of Falcon-9 is lower than $ 30 million(as I heard 28 $ million).It's irrational, I'm sorry. But the whole experience of my life tells me to believe this dude and not to Ms. Barashkova from GK Launch Services .SpaceX suggests a propulsive landing. This is the right way.It's hard to improve something else here.But I remember that Elon had an extraordinary promise.After landing to the barge, the booster was supposed to refuel there and fly to the launch site on its own. ;)
SpaceX never speak about this in detail and never offered real evidence that F9R have any real cost savings so far.
They have reduced their prices. Of course reuse is far from the only way to reduce prices, but personally I believe SpaceX when they say reuse has enabled cost (and thus price) reduction.
On a separate point, I don’t think the recent Merlin failure due to residual cleaning fluid igniting tells us anything useful about how many flights a booster can make. They just need to take more care whenever such cleaning is required (which could be on every reuse for all we know).
1. How much they reduced their prices. What I read last time, their prices for big comsats are still little more than 60 ml$. Some big comsats, that flew first time on reused boosters got some discount in the past, but not now. I don't want to discuss again IXPE with halve off F9R payload capacity, only big comsats prices.
Of course, if they have lot of free capital from outside investment or private debt, it doesn't really matter. TB suggest this on REDDIT and said, that it bring total disconnect between real prices and costs. So why SX didn't react on this and simply clarified how much outside investments and private debt they really have ?
2. When EM was asked on Twitter if B1048.5 engine failure could negatively affect the first planned Crew Dragon flight with humans in May. He said that no, because this flight will use brand new booster + engines, while B1048.5 ( boosters + engines ) had lot of wear and tear after 4 reflights.
As I said before 1 solid booster for Vulcan cost about 6 ml $. Subcooling LOX for Vulcan 1st and 2st stage and cooling of LNG for Vulcan 1st stage could be equal to using 2 or 3 solid boosters. Other option for increase of payload is simple to make tanks much bigger at first place. But making tanks bigger or SC of propellant isn't never free. It should have always negative effect on your total cost per launch.
Same with all new or planned launchers like New Glenn, Angara, Ariane 6, Long March 7. If they all could increase their launchers payload by 20 % = decrease their cost per kilogram by 20 %, without any significant increase of total cost per launch, they will be all doing this. There is very competitive commercial launch market right now and everyone want have part of it.
My prediction for F9R breakeven number was 7-10 and I never said, that they could not do this in the future. Only that I believe TB, that F9R 1st reuse didn't bring any cost savings so far. SpaceX could have enough capital, before they get there.
Well at least the Russians admit SpaceX's reuse does save money, that's progress, unlike ULA who still insists no saving until 10 reuses.
And despite all its faults, I think the analysis is sort of correct in that having someone paying for the full hardware cost in the first launch does make it easier for reuse to break even, I suspect you could show this using ULA's spreadsheet. I don't think SpaceX needs this to break even, but it's a nice bonus.
1. 20 % of increase of payload thanks to subcooling of LOX and cooling of RP1, was said also by EM, even before F9R full thrust really start flying. Before it was about 17t, than about 22t to LEO. How much you think it is 5-10 % ??? I said about 20 %, not exactly 20.There were other changes in parallel that happened, so you can't attribute it all to the subcooling. In reality, the main improvements have been in the increased thrust. To make best use of increased thrust you want to make the rocket heavier with additional fuel. SpaceX went to subcooling when other constraints prevented simply making the rocket bigger. Many rockets would not be able to lift off if they added more fuel by subcooling.
My prediction for F9R breakeven number was 7-10 and I never said, that they could not do this in the future. Only that I believe TB, that F9R 1st reuse didn't bring any cost savings so far. SpaceX could have enough capital, before they get there.Tory Bruno's claim is based on a long since debunked analysis. Even the recently released analysis from Russia disagrees with that claim. SpaceX has stated from the beginning that they saved money from even the very first reuse, so the only real question is how many reuses before development cost is paid back.
I also believe that fully reusable Starship/SH, will have much better final cost per kilogram than F9R and will bring real cost savings.
In my experience people make assertions of this kind through the filter of their own experience. The Russians have been gouging NASA for seats on Soyuz for years to prop up their space program and therefore presume SpaceX is doing the same.
My prediction for F9R breakeven number was 7-10 and I never said, that they could not do this in the future. Only that I believe TB...
I understand that SpaceX has not achieved everything they have set out to achieve, but like many others here I have looked deep into the actual numbers over these many years, and the math for reusability pencils out.Not yet, to be strictly accurate.
I've been waiting for someone to publicly say that NASA also subsidizes Soyuz.Not directly, of course. But it's true.If there was no contract with NASA(or ISS itself)then the Russian manned program would resemble a Chinese ,with six flights in 20 years.And so, the agreement with NASA makes Roskosmos keep the brand.For that, my friends who work at the Saturn plant(in my town)and produce solar panels for Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are grateful to NASA.
Because doing so would put them at a competitive disadvantage, which could result in the loss of new customers, new revenue, and job losses (not to mention CEO bonuses).You are right in many ways, but money is not the main reason here.Money alone doesn’t mean much in Russia.
So if re-usability isn't working, then why did SpaceX drop the cost of a F9 rocket from $62 million base price for a new rocket to around $40 million to re-use a rocket. That says a lot. a $20 million +/- drop in price. It obviously cost's less to refurbish than some companies believe.
The problem with ULA is they buy their engines from someone else at a higher cost than SpaceX engines. Once Blue Origin gets New Glenn up and running, and SpaceX gets Starship up and running, prices to orbit are going to drop. Throw-a-way rockets are going to be too expensive. Won't happen overnight, but within 5-10 years, everyone else is going to be working on reuse. Ships, cars, trains, and planes are all re-used. Rockets are the last hold-out for re-use.
I understand that SpaceX has not achieved everything they have set out to achieve, but like many others here I have looked deep into the actual numbers over these many years, and the math for reusability pencils out.Not yet, to be strictly accurate.
I think we're all hoping SS/SH will finally deliver US reusability.
QuoteI've been waiting for someone to publicly say that NASA also subsidizes Soyuz.Not directly, of course. But it's true.
A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.
SpaceX gives hope for all.And hope does not have a price list.Hmmm.
SpaceX gives hope for all.And hope does not have a price list.Hmmm.
I like that.
Tell your friends.
The day is coming when Soyuz monopoly on human access to LEO will end. When that happens someone inside their organization had better have a Plan B at some level of development.
SpaceX gives hope for all.And hope does not have a price list.Hmmm.
I like that.
Tell your friends.
The day is coming when Soyuz monopoly on human access to LEO will end. When that happens someone inside their organization had better have a Plan B at some level of development.
More specifically, the Soyuz monopoly will end when BOTH CCP providers are regularly flying folks to the ISS.
In the Shuttle days you had Shuttle and Soyuz to transport people to the ISS. Soyuz was the backup for when Shuttle had to stand down.
When Shuttle was retired in 2011 Soyuz became the primary AND only vehicle for flying people to the ISS.
CCP is about to restore the situation of the Shuttle days: Crew Dragon and Soyuz, and they act as each others backups.
When, about a year after that, Starliner also comes online than Crew Dragon and Starliner will be each others backups. The only customers left for Soyuz will be Russian cosmonauts and whoever the Russians can convince to fly on Soyuz.
.
The problem is, modern Russia has been cruising on the accomplishments of the old Soviet Union. The soyuz was the cheapest way of getting into orbit until SpaceX came around, because they weren't putting anything into r&D, and had cheap labor costs. They literally cannot afford to catch up with the falcon 9, New Glen, and whatever link space is coming up with, let alone deal with the sea change that starship is.SpaceX gives hope for all.And hope does not have a price list.Hmmm.
I like that.
Tell your friends.
The day is coming when Soyuz monopoly on human access to LEO will end. When that happens someone inside their organization had better have a Plan B at some level of development.
More specifically, the Soyuz monopoly will end when BOTH CCP providers are regularly flying folks to the ISS.
In the Shuttle days you had Shuttle and Soyuz to transport people to the ISS. Soyuz was the backup for when Shuttle had to stand down.
When Shuttle was retired in 2011 Soyuz became the primary AND only vehicle for flying people to the ISS.
CCP is about to restore the situation of the Shuttle days: Crew Dragon and Soyuz, and they act as each others backups.
When, about a year after that, Starliner also comes online than Crew Dragon and Starliner will be each others backups. The only customers left for Soyuz will be Russian cosmonauts and whoever the Russians can convince to fly on Soyuz.
.
I think this three companies should start think about a common space hotel (private space station) they could make a lot of mony by sending people there for one week or two in space, may be also offering possibilities for others countries non involved in the ISS program to perform scientifc experience there. anyway competition will lower prices and lower will open new markets.
It’s pretty low, maybe a couple million per year.You need to add running costs of SpaceX Navy to reuse costs.After recent Russian skepticism about SpaceX costs, this:
[...]
If SpaceX spent $1 billion learning how to reuse rockets and their launch prices remain otherwise unaffected, the cost of developing reuse should be fully recovered inside of 34 launches, regardless of how many times a given stage can be flown.
Not directly, of course. But it's true.If there was no contract with NASA(or ISS itself)then the Russian manned program would resemble a Chinese ,with six flights in 20 years.And so, the agreement with NASA makes Roskosmos keep the brand.For that, my friends who work at the Saturn plant(in my town)and produce solar panels for Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are grateful to NASA.
It’s pretty low, maybe a couple million per year.You need to add running costs of SpaceX Navy to reuse costs.After recent Russian skepticism about SpaceX costs, this:
[...]
If SpaceX spent $1 billion learning how to reuse rockets and their launch prices remain otherwise unaffected, the cost of developing reuse should be fully recovered inside of 34 launches, regardless of how many times a given stage can be flown.
Which is an interesting point. Elon wants to go to Mars as a permanent endeavor, so he will have to face the pension overhead issue as SpaceX itself becomes a long lived incumbent company. That will weigh on costs that SpaceX currently does not shoulder. The fully burdened costs of pension liabilities for a SpaceX lifer, who came in as a college graduate, is nothing to sniff at.
In Irene Klotz's interview of Musk in the run-up to DM-2, he puts the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 flight (1st stage and fairing reusable) at $15 million, of which $10 million is the upper stage. Only $1 million for first stage refurbishment.With just 4 satellites in a rideshare mission they can undercut 4 equivalent Electron launches.
The discussion is about 4/10ths into the interview...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk
Don't forget this is only marginal cost, generally have to add in initial cost for the stage divided by number of reuses (plus profit, if that isn't included) This would add around $4 to $14 million per launch. (Assuming first stage is 0.7*$60 million, and between 3 and 10 reuses, ignoring fairing as a rounding error of <1 million per launch)In Irene Klotz's interview of Musk in the run-up to DM-2, he puts the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 flight (1st stage and fairing reusable) at $15 million, of which $10 million is the upper stage. Only $1 million for first stage refurbishment.With just 4 satellites in a rideshare mission they can undercut 4 equivalent Electron launches.
The discussion is about 4/10ths into the interview...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk
Don't forget this is only marginal cost, generally have to add in initial cost for the stage divided by number of reuses (plus profit, if that isn't included) This would add around $4 to $14 million per launch. (Assuming first stage is 0.7*$60 million, and between 3 and 10 reuses, ignoring fairing as a rounding error of <1 million per launch)In Irene Klotz's interview of Musk in the run-up to DM-2, he puts the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 flight (1st stage and fairing reusable) at $15 million, of which $10 million is the upper stage. Only $1 million for first stage refurbishment.With just 4 satellites in a rideshare mission they can undercut 4 equivalent Electron launches.
The discussion is about 4/10ths into the interview...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk
Starting with $15M per flight marginal cost.
Then add 1st Stage amortized costs over 5 flights +$6M
Then add faring amortized costs over 3 flights +$2.3M
Then add launch processing costs $7M
Then add profit (fixed amount) $11M
Price = $42M.
Max Cost to Starlink per flight (no profit) $31M.
This is inline with the reported Starlink launch costs and the reuse pricing values.
The profit margin on the $62M new booster launch was an estimated $11M or ~20%. But maintaining the same fixed profit amount with much lower costs the profit margin has increased to >30%.
Then add launch processing costs $7M
Then add launch processing costs $7M
What are launch processing costs? Setting aside the amortization of the hardware costs, the $15 million includes all of the costs for launch.
I'm just going by what Musk said. $15 million, $10 million of which is upper stage and $1 million of which is first stage refurbishment. That leaves $4 million for the fairing refurbishment (if any) and running the prep, launch and recovery operations. "$1,000 a ton to orbit" was what he said.
It seems likely that this is for a Starlink launch, which by now they are probably pretty good at doing.
Of course, the amortized costs are also true costs. But the marginal costs form the basis for the pricing and production decision-making on a going-forward basis, now that Falcon 9 is operational.
I haven't heard the interview myself but if the cost of a launch is $15,000,000 and a starlink launch is
60 * 260kg = 15,600 kg total payload
That means $1000 per kg to orbit rather than $1000 a ton.
Or am I misunderstanding what is being said?
Musk is not reliable source , he always say some crazy stuff on twitter . you shouldn't take his twitter seriously.This was based on an interview, not tweets, and Musk is generally a very reliable source. Though it turns out from this interview he hasn't been keeping count of how many total F9s have launched.
After listening carefully to the podcast (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk) (line in question is at 18:25), I'm pretty sure his words are
"Call it a million dollars worth of refurbishment needed for the booster."
Listening to it at speed, I could hear it either way, but slowing it down a bit and listening to a small part of the end of the clip, then slowly adding more to the front to try and avoid my brain using pattern recognition to fill in more than is actually there, I heard "million dollars", then "a million dollars", then "idda million dollars", then "allidda million dollars", then "callidda million dollars".
Take that for what you will.
Musk is not reliable source , he always say some crazy stuff on twitter . you shouldn't take his twitter seriously.
Facts ? musk twitter once said starlink launch is 18.5T .Which is actually 15.6T .
And once said Falcon9 will do 24h reuse in 2018.Which is obvious false.the list just go on and on . you can fact check his twitter from past few years, you know what I mean
remember he is a business man first .
To add to this, anyone who claims Musk is a business man first is not familiar with his history and technical background.Facts ? musk twitter once said starlink launch is 18.5T .Which is actually 15.6T .
And once said Falcon9 will do 24h reuse in 2018.Which is obvious false.the list just go on and on . you can fact check his twitter from past few years, you know what I mean
remember he is a business man first .
The 24 h reflight was a forward-looking statement about an aspirational goal, that's very different than looking at current operating costs.
And Musk (maybe) being off by a few percent on the total Starlink mass hardly implies that he's off by 1000s of percent on the cost of booster refurbishment.
Only sith deals in absolute .
everybody knew he has the tech education background. but he always make exaggerated claims to promote his product.That's why I said he is a businessman first.
so you shouldn't take his promoting seriously. he said reusability can make Falcon 9 cost about 2 million, which is not true as well. is there more example I have to list?
Only sith deals in absolute .
everybody knew he has the tech education background. but he always make exaggerated claims to promote his product.That's why I said he is a businessman first.
so you shouldn't take his promoting seriously. he said reusability can make Falcon 9 cost about 2 million, which is not true as well. is there more example I have to list?
Musk exaggerates a lot .actually i remember a spacex personnel last years said reuse didnt save much moneyOnly sith deals in absolute .
everybody knew he has the tech education background. but he always make exaggerated claims to promote his product.That's why I said he is a businessman first.
so you shouldn't take his promoting seriously. he said reusability can make Falcon 9 cost about 2 million, which is not true as well. is there more example I have to list?
So you found a few claims he did not back up? So now nothing he says is reliable? Despite what he has accomplished? :) You can certainly think that, and I'm sure he does not mind that at all. The more people like you who don't believe, the more of a head start he gets.
Most of us understand that he is a salesman. Yes, he exaggerates. A lot sometimes. But you have to take him seriously or you will be left behind.
Although to be fair I'd like to see a source of the "2 million claim". No doubt that was with full reusability. But right now F9 only has first stage reusability, and full reusability is now planned for the next launch vehicle. There is a huge difference (in English) when you say that something can be done versus will be done.
Musk exaggerates a lot .actually i remember a spacex personnel last years said reuse didnt save much money
refurbish cost about 20 miliion..its seems a lecture in university but i forgot the link.
Musk exaggerates a lot .actually i remember a spacex personnel last years said reuse didnt save much moneyA half remembered and incorrect statement from a vague source is not a basis on which to claim that someone was lying.
refurbish cost about 20 miliion..its seems a lecture in university but i forgot the link.
Musk exaggerates a lot .actually i remember a spacex personnel last years said reuse didnt save much moneyWelcome to the site and the second new member from the middle kingdom it appears.
refurbish cost about 20 miliion..its seems a lecture in university but i forgot the link.
Musks degree and his knowledge about rocket. doesn't that change the fact he is...
He always post those ridiculous statement.
For example : F9 2 stage reuse
starship going to orbit in 6 months
and those false statement
Falcon 9 can reuse ten time without furbish (we all see what happened in the last starlink launch)
PS: I was going to use Capitalism must die . but I think you guys wouldn't like it😂
Ah, FINALLY a comment that is on topic. As Musk and Shotwell have both stated, the Falcon 9 was DESIGNED to be capable of ten flights before significant refurbishment, but as they have stated MANY times before, they are still validating that it CAN do that. Reusability is still in its infancy, and people criticizing SpaceX for not moving fast enough are hilariously wrong.
Ah, FINALLY a comment that is on topic. As Musk and Shotwell have both stated, the Falcon 9 was DESIGNED to be capable of ten flights before significant refurbishment, but as they have stated MANY times before, they are still validating that it CAN do that. Reusability is still in its infancy, and people criticizing SpaceX for not moving fast enough are hilariously wrong.Indeed.
Ah, FINALLY a comment that is on topic. As Musk and Shotwell have both stated, the Falcon 9 was DESIGNED to be capable of ten flights before significant refurbishment, but as they have stated MANY times before, they are still validating that it CAN do that. Reusability is still in its infancy, and people criticizing SpaceX for not moving fast enough are hilariously wrong.Indeed.
At a 2 month turnaround cycle the first stage to make 5 launches could make 8 by years end if it continues to launch. The comment that refurb costs about $500k suggests it's mostly more of a detailed inspection that any major parts replacement (less than the cost of a Merlin?)
A great deal of that inspection is the detailed review of the booster telemetry data looking for any slightly out of character "Family" indications to warrant further up close inspection possibly minor standalone test to confirm all is well such as pressure test for leaks or electrical power up and diagnostic run on a specific box.Obviously it's hard to know what the full story is but that sounds quite plausible.
Remember this $500K value is the average. Some will cost less with nothing to look more closely at and others with several items to inspect more closely.
F9 is on the hairy edge of propellant reserves needed for re-use, even with densified props.I think that should be qualified by "For GTO missions with planned RTLS"
More to the point, there’s no good reason for Falcon 9 to leave performance on the table for no reason when they can almost always give the customer payload a higher energy to GTO. Using up propellant “reserves,” then, is just efficiency.F9 is on the hairy edge of propellant reserves needed for re-use, even with densified props.I think that should be qualified by "For GTO missions with planned RTLS"
But if for barge landings, or anything less than GTO (or escape) the margins are now more comfortable.
Ultimately, SpaceX hopes to reduce the turnaround time between launches from weeks to days, but as it is still learning from the process, extra care is being taken between launches. After a booster is returned to the company's hangar in Florida, the first stage is inspected for leaks and good welds, then the rocket's avionics are tested, plus some additional testing. This investigation takes nearly a month before a booster is put back into the processing flow for a new mission.
Based on the comment from the Ars Technica article, it sure doesn't seem like SpaceX is spending a lot of money to inspect a Falcon 9 stage after recovery. And other than consumables the actual 1s stage hardware cost for the next flight should be close to zero.
Ignoring the cost to recover the Falcon 9 1st stage, and ignoring the cost to recover a Vulcan engine module using the 'Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology' (SMART) reuse concept, it sure seems obvious that a reusable Falcon 9 would have a significant cost advantage over a reusable Vulcan since SpaceX does not need to build a new 1st stage tank for each flight.
Plus, even after manufacture, you STILL need to integrate it, inspect, and certify it and maybe even acceptance test it (although I don't think ULA usually does acceptance tests on new hardware like SpaceX does). A lot of the stuff needed for inspection/recert of used stages STILL needs to be done on new hardware.Based on the comment from the Ars Technica article, it sure doesn't seem like SpaceX is spending a lot of money to inspect a Falcon 9 stage after recovery. And other than consumables the actual 1s stage hardware cost for the next flight should be close to zero.
Ignoring the cost to recover the Falcon 9 1st stage, and ignoring the cost to recover a Vulcan engine module using the 'Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology' (SMART) reuse concept, it sure seems obvious that a reusable Falcon 9 would have a significant cost advantage over a reusable Vulcan since SpaceX does not need to build a new 1st stage tank for each flight.
Throwing out all of that beautiful, deeply machined aluminum iso-grid tankage, not cheap!
How many people in Florida are employed in recovering, refurbing, integrating, and launching Falcon 9s? maybe 500? (probably a LOT less are actually spending time on those tasks! So this is a very conservative estimate...)
If their average pay is $100k/year, then their total yearly pay is $50m. To turn around a booster in 51 days takes just $7 million of their time. That has got to be much less than the manufacturing cost (and, of course, new stages still need transport, integration, and launch besides testing of components and stuff in McGregor, which isn't really needed for flight-tested stages).
Yeah. It's pretty low. And that seems to correspond to SpaceX's $15m marginal price for Falcon 9 launches... $5m for reuse processing and launch plus $10m for the upper stage. That doesn't count the upfront cost of the new Falcon 9 ($40-50m? So maybe $10m per launch right now, that they're doing 5 total uses pretty regularly?). So this is basically the launch price SpaceX could get if they had, like, 10-100 reuses of the first stage. About $1000/kg.How many people in Florida are employed in recovering, refurbing, integrating, and launching Falcon 9s? maybe 500? (probably a LOT less are actually spending time on those tasks! So this is a very conservative estimate...)
If their average pay is $100k/year, then their total yearly pay is $50m. To turn around a booster in 51 days takes just $7 million of their time. That has got to be much less than the manufacturing cost (and, of course, new stages still need transport, integration, and launch besides testing of components and stuff in McGregor, which isn't really needed for flight-tested stages).
It should be even lower than that, because you're assuming the entire 500 people team works on a single booster at a time, and they can only refurbish 7 boosters per year. In reality there would be multiple teams working on multiple boosters in parallel, we've already seen them launched 9 reused boosters in just the first 6 months of this year, so they should at least be able to refurbish 18 boosters per year, which makes the cost to turn around a booster $2.8M.
Plus, even after manufacture, you STILL need to integrate it, inspect, and certify it and maybe even acceptance test it (although I don't think ULA usually does acceptance tests on new hardware like SpaceX does). A lot of the stuff needed for inspection/recert of used stages STILL needs to be done on new hardware.Yes, and probably one of the reasons SX decided to go with full stage recovery.
ULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672And paradoxically both statements are true, for the specific launch vehicles they refer to. :(QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.
Such a simple and obvious principle, and yet missed so often.twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.The flip side of this is unfortunately for ULA's Vulcan that is every payload. :(
Actually for Srarlink the penalty is closer to 25%, even for demanding high energy GTO mission, the penalty is only about (8300-5500)/8300=33.7%.twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.
Actually for Srarlink the penalty is closer to 25%, even for demanding high energy GTO mission, the penalty is only about (8300-5500)/8300=33.7%.twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.
However, a counter argument about this calculation, as Dr.Sowers and others repeatedly point out while Musk seemly missed, is the fixed cost of launching a given sized rocket, like facility, staff, fuel, etc. If the cost of S2 and such fixed cost is unfortunately low, it may even not be able to break even marginally.
My opinion is that most of this fixed costs are fixed per year, but not per launch. Thus with enough launch cadence, SpaceX, as Musk said, managed to split less than $5M to each launch.
Actually for Srarlink the penalty is closer to 25%, even for demanding high energy GTO mission, the penalty is only about (8300-5500)/8300=33.7%.twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672QuoteULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up to six with Falcon 9.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144QuotePayload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
Worth noting that the 40% payload penalty only applies to maxed out payloads - like Starlink. For the vast majority of customer launches F9 is so overpowered that in practice they experience zero payload sacrifice while still comfortably enabling reuse. In those cases the equation leans even further in favour of reuse.
However, a counter argument about this calculation, as Dr.Sowers and others repeatedly point out while Musk seemly missed, is the fixed cost of launching a given sized rocket, like facility, staff, fuel, etc. If the cost of S2 and such fixed cost is unfortunately low, it may even not be able to break even marginally.
My opinion is that most of this fixed costs are fixed per year, but not per launch. Thus with enough launch cadence, SpaceX, as Musk said, managed to split less than $5M to each launch.
At SpaceX's Rideshare price of 1mil minimum, then 5k$ per kg over 200kg, they are getting at least 3 mil on a 3 sat Rideshare, and maybe more, depending on mass. If their internal cost for a launch is under 5M, then the rideshares are at least coming close to paying for the Starlink mission.
To put that in perspective, Rocketlab charges around 6M for a 300kg max payload to LEO.
IMHO, what we see here is in large part is the effect of reuse onpricecost.
Edit: oops.
Their marginal cost per launch is about $15M according to Elon - with booster and fairing reuse. This includes fuel and other operational launch costs, but excludes R&D and general overheads.
Did EM counted all of this into his 1 ml$ per each refurb. cycle cost estimate ?
Some parts could be replaced after every flight, some only after 3th, 5th, 8th flight. So maybe for SX, it is hard to know already.
I don't know why, after seeing what SpaceX did, ULA decided not to go with reusability.As a company, ULA can't go out and say publicly that they made a mistake. Obviously they are now pursuing reusability, starting with the engines. However the Vulcan architecture was planned before it became obvious for non-SpaceX-ers that reusability pays off. Reusability like SpaceX does is simply impossible for that rocket.
Obviously they are now pursuing reusability, starting with the engines.
Good point, didn't know the long history. Just see a more than usual talk about reusability on Tory Bruno's Twitter lately.Obviously they are now pursuing reusability, starting with the engines.
It's not obvious to me that they are actually pursuing it. They have been talking about SMART for years, but so far it's always been something that maybe they'll do someday. They haven't committed any real resources to it or committed to any timeline at all, as far as I know.
The economics of recovering 2nd stage to save money by reusing it is marginal.
15-20% of the costs of a full new stack come from building the second stage. It's not insignificant, but for a long time improving first stage recovery and operations will pay better off. Also the R&D for reusing the second stage will take much longer to pay down, and payload hit will be much larger.The economics of recovering 2nd stage to save money by reusing it is marginal.
A blanket statement like that can't possibly be true. It's going to depend on the details.
SpaceX's Starship plans for 2nd stage reuse are entirely plausible and save a huge amount of money by reusing the second stage.
1. In this quora thread https://quora.com/How-does-SpaceX-refurbish-their-Falcon-9-rockets-after-they-land-How-long-does-it-take
Rodney Price 3th post, edit from march 2020, you can find quote supposedly of someone from SX about refurb. of used boosters now taking less than 30 days in Florida. But there is no link. Can anybody post source for this quote ?
No. It will be hard for him correctly estimate cost per 1 refurbishment cycle, even if he didn't try lie or cherry-pick any numbers. It obviously doesn't include amortized costs for reusability and probably any recovery costs. So far, SX could built 17 block 5 cores https://t.co/azCntTi4uc?amp=1 . 8 were destroyed or expanded and from those 9 which can be flown again, 2 have no missions yet. SX plan to fly all block 5 boosters at least 10 times.Did EM counted all of this into his 1 ml$ per each refurb. cycle cost estimate ?
Why would you think that Elon Musk wouldn't count any such costs as part of the refurbishment costs? If he was leaving anything like that out, he would be lying in saying it was the refurbishment costs. Why would he lie about that?Some parts could be replaced after every flight, some only after 3th, 5th, 8th flight. So maybe for SX, it is hard to know already.
They've already flown a booster 6 times. There's nothing that is "hard to know" for SpaceX up to that point.
1. Quote from Rodney Price quora post : " SpaceX have said the inspections/processing to let a recovered booster be reused now take less than 30 days, and is done entirely by operations in Florida, ie. no shipment back to manufacturing or to be tested at McGregor. "1. In this quora thread https://quora.com/How-does-SpaceX-refurbish-their-Falcon-9-rockets-after-they-land-How-long-does-it-take
Rodney Price 3th post, edit from march 2020, you can find quote supposedly of someone from SX about refurb. of used boosters now taking less than 30 days in Florida. But there is no link. Can anybody post source for this quote ?
It's from an unauthorized video recording of a private presentation given by Christopher Couluris, SpaceX's Director of Vehicle Integration, the video was taken down, but you can see the gist of the talk in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2041589#msg2041589
Obviously they are now pursuing reusability, starting with the engines.
It's not obvious to me that they are actually pursuing it. They have been talking about SMART for years, but so far it's always been something that maybe they'll do someday. They haven't committed any real resources to it or committed to any timeline at all, as far as I know.
No. It will be hard for him correctly estimate cost per 1 refurbishment cycle, even if he didn't try lie or cherry-pick any numbers. It obviously doesn't include amortized costs for reusability and probably any recovery costs. So far, SX could built 17 block 5 cores https://t.co/azCntTi4uc?amp=1 . 8 were destroyed or expanded and from those 9 which can be flown again, 2 have no missions yet. SX plan to fly all block 5 boosters at least 10 times.Did EM counted all of this into his 1 ml$ per each refurb. cycle cost estimate ?
Why would you think that Elon Musk wouldn't count any such costs as part of the refurbishment costs? If he was leaving anything like that out, he would be lying in saying it was the refurbishment costs. Why would he lie about that?Some parts could be replaced after every flight, some only after 3th, 5th, 8th flight. So maybe for SX, it is hard to know already.
They've already flown a booster 6 times. There's nothing that is "hard to know" for SpaceX up to that point.
EM interview in Aviation Week was from May of this year. Before May only 1 booster flew more than 4 times.
I would be surprised if cost of refurbishment will be always same for every refurb. cycle. Depending on exact mission and weather conditions during launch, booster could endure worse or lower wear and tear, so it refurb. cost after flight could be different.
Many parts of hardware, that could need replacement during refurbishment ( like turbine wheels, Helium COPVs ) are build also for new upper stages and Shotwell said, that SX will build 10 new reusable boosters this year. They simply kept all production lines open and are building simultaneously similar hardware for new upper stages, new reusable boosters and used boosters, if they need swap some parts that are not qualified for next flight.
So it could be quite hard for them already know correct numbers.
Many parts of hardware, that could need replacement during refurbishment ( like turbine wheels, Helium COPVs ) are build also for new upper stages and Shotwell said, that SX will build 10 new reusable boosters this year. They simply kept all production lines open and are building simultaneously similar hardware for new upper stages, new reusable boosters and used boosters, if they need swap some parts that are not qualified for next flight.
So it could be quite hard for them already know correct numbers.
SpaceX was initially going to go with a Falcon 5, same diameter core with 5 engines. No reusability. ...No, SpaceX was going for parachute + splashdown reusability with Falcon 5 (and Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, for that matter). It didn't work in F1 or F9 when they tried, so that's why they went with VTVL in Falcon 9 v1.1 and onward.
To me the $15m marginal launch cost was kind of Elon’s best case scenario with full fairing reuse which seems close to being achieved. The whole point he was making was that this was pretty much the limit of cost reduction with partial reusability - explaining why Starship is required for the next level of cost reduction.1. Was any of this said also by EM or someone from SX, or are this just assumptions. I have no subscription for Aviation Week, but did EM explain there what " listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case " mean. And if it is influenced by fairings recovery.
So whether the exact marginal cost on one flight at the moment is $20m, and $18m on another and maybe $15m on a perfect flight where fairing catches go perfectly and the booster lands gently, the point is that to unlock a further exponential drop in cost/ton to orbit, full and rapid reusability through Starship is required. F9 is close to optimized at this point.
To me the $15m marginal launch cost was kind of Elon’s best case scenario with full fairing reuse which seems close to being achieved. The whole point he was making was that this was pretty much the limit of cost reduction with partial reusability - explaining why Starship is required for the next level of cost reduction.1. Was any of this said also by EM or someone from SX, or are this just assumptions. I have no subscription for Aviation Week, but did EM explain there what " listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case " mean. And if it is influenced by fairings recovery.
So whether the exact marginal cost on one flight at the moment is $20m, and $18m on another and maybe $15m on a perfect flight where fairing catches go perfectly and the booster lands gently, the point is that to unlock a further exponential drop in cost/ton to orbit, full and rapid reusability through Starship is required. F9 is close to optimized at this point.
I understand this quote from inverse article, like that SX have some internal estimates for F9R marginal cost with best case scenario and worst case scenario and EM said us the best case option.
Did EM also explained in AW article, more in detail what exactly is included in his cost estimate of 1ml$ for booster refurbishment.
2. Also from inverse article https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9-economics
quote from EM :
The boost stage, he stated, costs around 60 percent of the total costs, with the upper stage 20 percent, the fairing 10 percent, and the final 10 percent associated with the launch itself."
Well this contradict to what T.Bruno said on REDDIT.
TB quote : " Let's say that you are wildly successful such that the rocket becomes not 50%, but 70% of the cost of the launch service. Then, you still can only save 35% of the launch service price with a free booster... "
TB said, that 1st stage is standardly 1/2 from cost of the rocket. EM said, that for F9R it is 2/3 from the cost of rocket, so with TB limitation it would be 46 % from total cost of launch service.
And TB even said to this, quote : " There is no credible math that makes a reusable booster, all by itself, drop the cost of a launch service to half."
It sounds obvious to me from this whole TB REDDIT post, that he doesn't count any additional military, NASA costs, into those 30 %, unrelated to the cost of rocket. SpaceX fly mostly commercial launches, not NASA, DoD missions, so it sound like he speak about limitations for any orbital launch provider in general.
This is strongest contradiction between statements of T.Bruno and E.Musk. EM estimate of costs unrelated to building rocket ( or costs unrelated of refurbishing used rocket booster, 2st stage ) are much lower than even T.Bruno " wildly successful " estimates.
1. Refurbishment of used booster should include inspection ( scanning ) of used hardware and manually replacing parts, that are not qualified for the next flight. EM also said - quote from above mentioned quora post : " Cleaning all nine Merlin turbines is difficult, he said. ” So it should be also included into refurb. cost.Many parts of hardware, that could need replacement during refurbishment ( like turbine wheels, Helium COPVs ) are build also for new upper stages and Shotwell said, that SX will build 10 new reusable boosters this year. They simply kept all production lines open and are building simultaneously similar hardware for new upper stages, new reusable boosters and used boosters, if they need swap some parts that are not qualified for next flight.
The Falcon product production lines have never shut down, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Every launch requires a new 2nd stage, which is built on the same production line as the 1st stage, and likely uses a lot of the same parts. Not the engine of course, since the Merlin Vacuum is a different engine than the Merlin 1D.
And speaking of engine production, the same engine production area builds Merlin 1D, Merlin Vacuum, and all flavors of Raptor. Likely the Draco and Super Draco too. So if they need spare parts that is not a problem since the supply chain is active.QuoteSo it could be quite hard for them already know correct numbers.
They know EXACTLY what each launch has cost, and what each booster has required after recovery in order to get it ready to fly again. It is not hard to do.
I've worked with a lot of support people over the years that ran operations like what SpaceX is doing for refurbishment, and each time they refurbish a unit that information is fed into a system so they can understand what the costs are, and what the trends are. And all of that information is fed back into the manufacturing engineering group so they can address any issues that need to be addressed.
Very chaotic interview and bad sound quality.To me the $15m marginal launch cost was kind of Elon’s best case scenario with full fairing reuse which seems close to being achieved. The whole point he was making was that this was pretty much the limit of cost reduction with partial reusability - explaining why Starship is required for the next level of cost reduction.1. Was any of this said also by EM or someone from SX, or are this just assumptions. I have no subscription for Aviation Week, but did EM explain there what " listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case " mean. And if it is influenced by fairings recovery.
So whether the exact marginal cost on one flight at the moment is $20m, and $18m on another and maybe $15m on a perfect flight where fairing catches go perfectly and the booster lands gently, the point is that to unlock a further exponential drop in cost/ton to orbit, full and rapid reusability through Starship is required. F9 is close to optimized at this point.
I understand this quote from inverse article, like that SX have some internal estimates for F9R marginal cost with best case scenario and worst case scenario and EM said us the best case option.
Did EM also explained in AW article, more in detail what exactly is included in his cost estimate of 1ml$ for booster refurbishment.
2. Also from inverse article https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9-economics
quote from EM :
The boost stage, he stated, costs around 60 percent of the total costs, with the upper stage 20 percent, the fairing 10 percent, and the final 10 percent associated with the launch itself."
Well this contradict to what T.Bruno said on REDDIT.
TB quote : " Let's say that you are wildly successful such that the rocket becomes not 50%, but 70% of the cost of the launch service. Then, you still can only save 35% of the launch service price with a free booster... "
TB said, that 1st stage is standardly 1/2 from cost of the rocket. EM said, that for F9R it is 2/3 from the cost of rocket, so with TB limitation it would be 46 % from total cost of launch service.
And TB even said to this, quote : " There is no credible math that makes a reusable booster, all by itself, drop the cost of a launch service to half."
It sounds obvious to me from this whole TB REDDIT post, that he doesn't count any additional military, NASA costs, into those 30 %, unrelated to the cost of rocket. SpaceX fly mostly commercial launches, not NASA, DoD missions, so it sound like he speak about limitations for any orbital launch provider in general.
This is strongest contradiction between statements of T.Bruno and E.Musk. EM estimate of costs unrelated to building rocket ( or costs unrelated of refurbishing used rocket booster, 2st stage ) are much lower than even T.Bruno " wildly successful " estimates.
It wasn’t an article written by someone else. It was an audio interview with Elon himself. So you can listen to his exact words, including the context of his statements, tone and implied meaning. Some of us have done that, and tried to give you the short version.
But make up your own mind.
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/aviationweek/status/1265249834379984896?s=21
1. Refurbishment of used booster should include inspection ( scanning ) of used hardware and manually replacing parts, that are not qualified for the next flight.
2. Unit cost of any hardware parts depend on production rates. Right now, they producing similar hardware for new upper stages, new reusable boosters and used boosters, if they have some parts that need to be swapped.
Raptor, SH/Starship hardware should be also completely different, than any F9R hardware, so I doubt they can use it like substitute parts for used F9R booster. Can you give me one example ?
both "quotes" are from the same talk.1. Quote from Rodney Price quora post : " SpaceX have said the inspections/processing to let a recovered booster be reused now take less than 30 days, and is done entirely by operations in Florida, ie. no shipment back to manufacturing or to be tested at McGregor. "1. In this quora thread https://quora.com/How-does-SpaceX-refurbish-their-Falcon-9-rockets-after-they-land-How-long-does-it-take
Rodney Price 3th post, edit from march 2020, you can find quote supposedly of someone from SX about refurb. of used boosters now taking less than 30 days in Florida. But there is no link. Can anybody post source for this quote ?
It's from an unauthorized video recording of a private presentation given by Christopher Couluris, SpaceX's Director of Vehicle Integration, the video was taken down, but you can see the gist of the talk in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2041589#msg2041589
Is this the same quote, that you heard from this unauthorized video recording of SX dir. of VI. From your post it is "
at 13:20: stage refurbishment by maintenance crew, following air-plane model. Takes about 30 days to return a booster to flight."
So it sounds like 2 different quotes. Was the 1st quote really said by someone from SX and is there source for it.
But about 30 days ( or little above 30 days ) for one refurb. cycle could be correct, because B1058 was test fired on CC about 40 days after 1st flight. Question is, if after many reflights refurb times don't start to be little longer.
2. Does anybody here really don't know, what can be block 5 Helium COPVs unit cost, how many units F9R need and what is their design life ( if they don't need replace them after every booster flight ).
I would guess 3,4 COPVs are needed for 1stage RP1 and LOX tank and 1 COPV is needed for upper stage RP1 and LOX tank ( so 8 - 10 together ).
Nobody is going to answer you the second question.
P.S. I don't believe SpaceX know themselves what the shelf life of B9b5 is. According to numerous statements they have certificated "most" of the components with 10 re-flights, but apparently the tests were very conservative and not "to the destruction". i.e. 10 is not nearly the max survivable. I believe they are going to push the envelope with the Starlink launches. (they have clearly surplus of the pizzas to do that without too much hesitation. From engineering POV this push to the limit is very important).
P.P.S F9R is the official name of the final Falcon hopper (which blew up in mcGregor destroying McGregor developing plans as well), please use correct abbreviations.
We are still a little way from this, but I've been wondering if they will spend the money to recover end of live Block 5's for inspection, or if they fly the final flights as expendable.Back when they were first recovering cores, they took one of them to McGregor and did seven (original plan was ten?) full-duration burns to explore what kind of limits they saw there. Maybe we'll see them take a life-leader at some point back to McGregor and put it through its paces again with multiple full-duration burns.
We are still a little way from this, but I've been wondering if they will spend the money to recover end of live Block 5's for inspection, or if they fly the final flights as expendable.
I don't know if they could add additional Starlinks to use up the added payload capability of an expendable flight.
We are still a little way from this, but I've been wondering if they will spend the money to recover end of live Block 5's for inspection, or if they fly the final flights as expendable.Back when they were first recovering cores, they took one of them to McGregor and did seven (original plan was ten?) full-duration burns to explore what kind of limits they saw there. Maybe we'll see them take a life-leader at some point back to McGregor and put it through its paces again with multiple full-duration burns.
1. I am not worried about the F9R refurbishment cost, I am curious. Even in the worst case scenario its refurbishment cost should be much lower than Shuttle boosters refurbishment cost ( which was about 50 ml$ for both solids ).1. Refurbishment of used booster should include inspection ( scanning ) of used hardware and manually replacing parts, that are not qualified for the next flight.
Yes, like virtually every transportation system. It just so happens that reusable rockets are a new thing, with no comparable history to rely upon (Shuttle was significantly different), so they could be over-inspecting and being overly careful about part replacement at this point, but that is OK due to the cost of potential failure.
Remember planes, trains and automobiles have been around for longer than 100 years, but reusable rockets just a few years.Quote2. Unit cost of any hardware parts depend on production rates. Right now, they producing similar hardware for new upper stages, new reusable boosters and used boosters, if they have some parts that need to be swapped.
OK, but so what? Why are you worried about cost, especially since you have no idea what their costs are? Literally NO ONE outside of SpaceX truly knows what their costs are, just as no one outside of ULA knows what their costs are.QuoteRaptor, SH/Starship hardware should be also completely different, than any F9R hardware, so I doubt they can use it like substitute parts for used F9R booster. Can you give me one example ?
I never said they could substitute parts between engines, my point was that they have an active supply chain and they have active production facilities. As someone who has a manufacturing background this tells me that they don't have a problem supporting Falcon 9 reusability.
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing for or against at this moment, do you?
I do not understand why there’s a repeated attempt to bring Tory Bruno into a conversation about SpaceX’s cost savings due to reuse. Bruno is not affiliated with SpaceX, or reuse. That alone should make it clear his statements don’t carry much weight applied to the topic at hand. It makes sense to listen to his views and apply them to ULA’s reusability plans (or lack thereof).This thread is called the Reusability effect on costs. Its purpose is not only to discuss if reusability can save cost of launch, but also how much.
There’s a pretty easy measuring stick to tell that reuse is worthwhile in SpaceX’s eyes: they keep doing it. They’ve demonstrated more than once that they’re not above dropping initiatives, even with considerable sunk cost, if they don’t work. It would be beyond belief that they’d keep going to the trouble of landing and relaunching if it were of questionable benefit.
[...]Is it so hard to believe that they could both be telling the truth? They have, after all, significantly different launch vehicles. Not to mention different priorities and constraints.
It is important to know which one [Tory Bruno @ ULA and Elon Musk @ SpaceX] is telling the truth, so we could know how much from the cost of launch, could reusability really save.
[...]
Some industry insider who understands these cost factors, should know if TB or EM is telling the truth.
1. I am not worried about the F9R refurbishment cost, I am curious. Even in the worst case scenario its refurbishment cost should be much lower than Shuttle boosters refurbishment cost ( which was about 50 ml$ for both solids ).
So why some writers from NSF, ArsTechnica or Spaceflightnow can not simply ask them about the status of F9R helium COPVs ?
2. I was arguing that SX can not yet accurately predict unit cost of F9R hardware ( and with this related 1stage refurb. cost ), because its HW unit cost could change in the future. They can not every year produce 10 reusable boosters, designed for at least 10 flights. In the last 2 years they produced as many reusable boosters as AS made expendable ones. Once they limit production, their HW unit cost should become higher. Starship/SH production will have no effect on this.
If the difference in unit cost between the cheapest possible reusable and expendable booster in the same lift category will be a factor of 4 or more, then even with small refurb. and recovery costs breakeven number will be higher than 5.
Nobody outside SX can know their actual costs, but SX was never shy to share many technical and financial details about F9R or Starship/SH. Even facts about what fairing halve or 1 Merlin unit cost is.
2. I was arguing that SX can not yet accurately predict unit cost of F9R hardware ( and with this related 1stage refurb. cost ), because its HW unit cost could change in the future.
They can not every year produce 10 reusable boosters, designed for at least 10 flights.
Once they limit production, their HW unit cost should become higher. Starship/SH production will have no effect on this.
But could EM really know, how cheap expendable booster in F9R lift category ( 15.6t to LEO ) could SX build, if they invested all their billions$ into it development instead of Starship/SH development.
Propulsive flyback booster HW should have higher quality standards than any expendable booster HW, because it needs to endure worse wear and tear during deacceleration in vacuum, reentry and landing burn, which should make also this HW unit cost higher.
If the difference in unit cost between the cheapest possible reusable and expendable booster in the same lift category will be a factor of 4 or more, then even with small refurb. and recovery costs breakeven number will be higher than 5.
Let’s take today’s SaocomB launch as an example.
With the mission concluded SpaceX has pocketed the launch fee and is sitting with a perfectly usable booster at LZ1. (Not sure about status of the fairings yet).
What did they supposedly have to “sacrifice” to get this free booster for future reuse?
A bit of extra fuel (maybe $100k).
A bit of refurbishment cost (less than $1m according to Elon).
The payload penalty cost was non existent, as the customer payload was delivered as required, and then some.
Let’s take today’s SaocomB launch as an example.
With the mission concluded SpaceX has pocketed the launch fee and is sitting with a perfectly usable booster at LZ1. (Not sure about status of the fairings yet).
What did they supposedly have to “sacrifice” to get this free booster for future reuse?
A bit of extra fuel (maybe $100k).
A bit of refurbishment cost (less than $1m according to Elon).
The payload penalty cost was non existent, as the customer payload was delivered as required, and then some.
The payload penalty cost was non existent, as the customer payload was delivered as required, and then some.Payload penalty is not entirely irrelevant, because to get the margin to deliver the customer payload, you need a 40% larger vehicle. And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build. So I think Elon Musk's calculation factoring payload reduction into the reusability math is correct, considering your vehicle would satisfy all customers needs in expendable mode if it was 40% smaller.
And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build.
I don't think it's fair to compare Falcon 9 to other smaller rockets, because SpaceX builds rockets cheaper than almost anyone else. If Falcon 9 was a Falcon 5, it would probably be cheaper. Starship can't be compared with Falcon 9 either, because if they built Starships in F9 size it would be much cheaper to build than Falcon 9.And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build.
I think the evidence doesn't support that statement.
The ratio of cost to payload is much, much lower for larger rockets. Just compare Falcon 9 to Electron, or any other big launcher (SLS excepted) to a small launcher.
When you scale up a rocket by a certain factor, the cost usually scales up by a smaller factor.
There are exceptions, of course. These tend to be when you hit certain limits such as the limit for what is road-transportable. But there's little to no indication that Falcon 9 has hit many significant points like this where it's so big that it incurs significant additional cost.
I don't think it's fair to compare Falcon 9 to other smaller rockets, because SpaceX builds rockets cheaper than almost anyone else. If Falcon 9 was a Falcon 5, it would probably be cheaper. Starship can't be compared with Falcon 9 either, because if they built Starships in F9 size it would be much cheaper to build than Falcon 9.And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build.
I think the evidence doesn't support that statement.
The ratio of cost to payload is much, much lower for larger rockets. Just compare Falcon 9 to Electron, or any other big launcher (SLS excepted) to a small launcher.
When you scale up a rocket by a certain factor, the cost usually scales up by a smaller factor.
There are exceptions, of course. These tend to be when you hit certain limits such as the limit for what is road-transportable. But there's little to no indication that Falcon 9 has hit many significant points like this where it's so big that it incurs significant additional cost.
It'd be more reasonable to compare two rockets of similar type, from same manufacturer, different sizes. Most costs scale fairly linear with mass, such as required thrust, volume and fuel. However other costs are fixed regardless of size such as launch services, range control, administration, electronics, software, some engineering, sales etc... making smaller rockets more expensive per kg payload.
Edit: Conclusion I can buy that a 40% smaller vehicle may be less than 40% cheaper, due to fixed costs.
To give an accurate comparison that costs for expendable non expendable is not as most think. The original F9 1.0 which had a payload capability of 9.5mt expendable cost the same for the boosters as does the F9 BLOCK 5. So the 40% statement is a fallacy.I don't think it's fair to compare Falcon 9 to other smaller rockets, because SpaceX builds rockets cheaper than almost anyone else. If Falcon 9 was a Falcon 5, it would probably be cheaper. Starship can't be compared with Falcon 9 either, because if they built Starships in F9 size it would be much cheaper to build than Falcon 9.And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build.
I think the evidence doesn't support that statement.
The ratio of cost to payload is much, much lower for larger rockets. Just compare Falcon 9 to Electron, or any other big launcher (SLS excepted) to a small launcher.
When you scale up a rocket by a certain factor, the cost usually scales up by a smaller factor.
There are exceptions, of course. These tend to be when you hit certain limits such as the limit for what is road-transportable. But there's little to no indication that Falcon 9 has hit many significant points like this where it's so big that it incurs significant additional cost.
It'd be more reasonable to compare two rockets of similar type, from same manufacturer, different sizes. Most costs scale fairly linear with mass, such as required thrust, volume and fuel. However other costs are fixed regardless of size such as launch services, range control, administration, electronics, software, some engineering, sales etc... making smaller rockets more expensive per kg payload.
Edit: Conclusion I can buy that a 40% smaller vehicle may be less than 40% cheaper, due to fixed costs.
Quote 11. I am not worried about the F9R refurbishment cost, I am curious. Even in the worst case scenario its refurbishment cost should be much lower than Shuttle boosters refurbishment cost ( which was about 50 ml$ for both solids ).
We already know the refurbishment costs. Musk has said explicitly what they are.
You keep posting, over and over, this bizarre idea that when Musk is saying refurbishment costs he's not actually including things like replacement parts that are clearly part of refurbishment costs.
You've already posted your theory. Others have already posted responses that they think when he says refurbishment costs, he means refurbishment costs. I'm not sure what value there is in continuing to go over the same territory that has already been discussed.So why some writers from NSF, ArsTechnica or Spaceflightnow can not simply ask them about the status of F9R helium COPVs ?
Because none of those people thinks there's any interesting issue there.
If you think there's something of note there, feel free to ask Musk yourself on Twitter. but don't expect others who don't share your concerns to ask Musk about them.2. I was arguing that SX can not yet accurately predict unit cost of F9R hardware ( and with this related 1stage refurb. cost ), because its HW unit cost could change in the future. They can not every year produce 10 reusable boosters, designed for at least 10 flights. In the last 2 years they produced as many reusable boosters as AS made expendable ones. Once they limit production, their HW unit cost should become higher. Starship/SH production will have no effect on this.
The production lines already exist. They're a sunk cost. It doesn't seem to me there's any reason to believe that the costs of parts to SpaceX will be much different per part at this point if the production of those parts decreases somewhat.If the difference in unit cost between the cheapest possible reusable and expendable booster in the same lift category will be a factor of 4 or more, then even with small refurb. and recovery costs breakeven number will be higher than 5.
Falcon 9, when used in reusable mode, is the cheapest launch vehicle in its payload class by a large margin. Some hardware (most notably legs, gridfins, and some TPS around the engine bay) needs to be added to make it reusable, but all indications are that the additional cost of that hardware is moderate. The idea that it needs to be a factor of 4 more expensive is wildly out of line with what the evidence suggests.
You can also look at Starship/Super Heavy. Musk's statements about projected build costs are that it will be significantly cheaper to build than Falcon 9. That is further evidence that making a rocket reusable doesn't make it enormously more expensive than an equivalent expendable vehicle.
Honest facts are always based on clear and undisputed evidence. If your are not interested about it at least don't discourage NSF, ArsTechnica and Spaceflightnow writers from asking SX, ULA, BO important questions.
Then, they can always offer us some new important info from them and we can know exactly how economics of reusability works for F9R.
Quote 1Nobody outside SX can know their actual costs, but SX was never shy to share many technical and financial details about F9R or Starship/SH. Even facts about what fairing halve or 1 Merlin unit cost is.
Elon Musk shares some bits and pieces, and if he states it then it is a believable number. In contrast, if Tory Bruno provides his guesses about SpaceX costs he is only making educated guesses - but still guesses like the rest of us.Quote2. I was arguing that SX can not yet accurately predict unit cost of F9R hardware ( and with this related 1stage refurb. cost ), because its HW unit cost could change in the future.
It is a given that things change, but that doesn't mean the SpaceX Cost Accounting department can't know the PRESENT cost of each and every Falcon 9 that is built, and all of the major and minor components. It is literally built into every modern ERP system.QuoteThey can not every year produce 10 reusable boosters, designed for at least 10 flights.
They obviously can build as many as they NEED.QuoteOnce they limit production, their HW unit cost should become higher. Starship/SH production will have no effect on this.
Their costs depend on a lot of factors, volume is just one of them.
For instance their electronics may be serviceable, which means that even though they are buying less of them, and the unit price is higher because of the lower volume, the amount they save by reusing each stage would more than make up for the higher purchase price.
For the 1st stage the difference in price for the aluminum wouldn't be that much, since they are buying a stock alloy. There might be a slight increase in price overall, but insignificant compared to the labor and other components that ultimately make up the total price.
So even if they are paying 5% more overall because of the lower volume of parts they need, that is more than made up by reuse.QuoteBut could EM really know, how cheap expendable booster in F9R lift category ( 15.6t to LEO ) could SX build, if they invested all their billions$ into it development instead of Starship/SH development.
I'm not quite sure what your question is, but regarding how much things cost and how much to charge for them, all you have to do is look at the success of Tesla and SpaceX, which are both hardware companies. If he didn't understand his costs then he wouldn't have been able to build such successful companies.QuotePropulsive flyback booster HW should have higher quality standards than any expendable booster HW, because it needs to endure worse wear and tear during deacceleration in vacuum, reentry and landing burn, which should make also this HW unit cost higher.
No, you are not understanding engineering. Reusable parts can have the same quality as expendable parts, it is just that one is designed for many uses. That doesn't mean that the expendable part is lower quality. In fact Tory Bruno would argue that ULA's quality for their expendable launch vehicles is very high - and I'm sure it is.QuoteIf the difference in unit cost between the cheapest possible reusable and expendable booster in the same lift category will be a factor of 4 or more, then even with small refurb. and recovery costs breakeven number will be higher than 5.
We know the customer PRICE for an expendable Falcon 9 is $62M. Elon Musk has stated that the breakdown in cost for the Falcon 9 is:
60% = 1st stage
20% = 2nd stage
10% = Fairing
10% = Cost of launch itself
So if they were making a profit with the expendable Falcon 9 at $62M (which they said they were), then the cost of the reusable 1st stage can't be a factor of 4X more expensive than the expendable 1st stage.
F9R was cheapest possible expendable rocket in it lift category with 2010s tech, that doesn't mean that it must be cheapest possible expendable rocket with 2020s and 2030s tech.
For example ESA has goal to decrease cost of Ariane 6 by factor 2 compare to Ariane 5. Which would be close to the cost of expendable F9.
With Ariane NEXT program, which included new CH4 Prometheus engine ESA had goal to decrease it unit cost further by factor of 10, compare to Ariane 6. Then they backtracked and said that by factor of 2, but that because ESA unlike SX always try to be conservative and not promised anything until it is granted.
Also in time when Ariane NEXT program started ESA didn't know yet, if AN and Prometheus engine will be design like expendable or reusable.
In each case ESA believe, that new manufacturing methods could still significantly decrease unit cost of rocket hardware even lower than F9R has right now.
Can we sometimes in the future cheaply 3D print entire tanks or entire engines ( not just their small parts which must be later assembled together ). Maybe yes. But it could be very different for expandable or reusable HW, which are design to endure very different wear and tear during the flight. And are design for easy inspections and part replacement after the flight.
Not you or EM could really know, what could be unit cost difference between cheapest possible reusable and expendable rocket in same lift category during 2020s or 2030s.
As I said before. If difference in unit cost between cheapest possible reusable and expandable booster in same category will be factor of 4, then even with low refurb. and recovery costs your breakeven number will be higher than 5. It could be even higher for 2stage and for exotic rocket designs like Skylon.
Quite opposite. It is you who don't understand anything about rocket engineering.
But reusable propulsive flyback hardware always need endure higher wear and tear during deacceleration, atmospheric reentry, landing burn and landing. It must be also designed for easy inspections after the flight and for easy parts ( which are not be qualified for next flight ) replacement after the flight.
You have no idea what information SX cost accounting department gave to EM.
EM estimates of cost to launch rocket ( unrelated to building or reusing rocket ) are much lower than even TB " wildly successful " estimates. But you decided to simply dismiss TB opinions, without having any idea how much$ payload integration could cost, what all procedures it includes and same for other cost factors, that I mentioned.
F9R was cheapest possible expendable rocket in it lift category with 2010s tech, that doesn't mean that it must be cheapest possible expendable rocket with 2020s and 2030s tech.
For example ESA has goal to decrease cost of Ariane 6 by factor 2 compare to Ariane 5. Which would be close to the cost of expendable F9.
As I said before. If difference in unit cost between cheapest possible reusable and expandable booster in same category will be factor of 4, then even with low refurb. and recovery costs your breakeven number will be higher than 5. It could be even higher for 2stage and for exotic rocket designs like Skylon.
Take an example; ULA uses very machining and material intensive isogrid tech to build disposable tanks. SpaceX use sheet and stringers.
As a result, I very much doubt disposable ULA first stage tankage is cheaper than SpaceX's reusable first stage tankage.
If you go to any magazine for car enthusiasts, they will track "Total Cost of Ownership" (https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31267529/cost-of-car-ownership/). For a particular car they own, they keep track of every penny they spend - purchase, depreciation, license, insurance, fuel, repairs (and if they need to tow it to the shop, that's included), replacement parts like tires and brake pads, new fluids like oil and refrigerant, etc. - every single penny.To go along with that is this blog entry from Wayne Hale titled What Figure Did You Have In Mind? in a response to a reporters question how much did it cost.
I think we can assume SpaceX is at least as competent as a car magazine. So inside SpaceX they will have a spreadsheet that tells the cost of each launch, first or reuse, as precisely as is humanly possible.
Since this is accounting, they likely split this cost up many ways. For example, they almost surely divide each re-use into barge landings and land landings. These will have separate retrieval costs. Then there is the refurbishment costs once they get the stage into the hanger. Then if you want the cost of *launching* a re-used booster, there is fuel, LOX, helium, range fees, etc. These are needed for figuring the selling price, but don't differ for a first or re-used launch. Then there will be different customer integration, security, and services requested. You can include fixed costs, or not. I'd not be surprised if there are 20 different ways to quote the cost of a re-used booster, all of them "correct". Elon will pick various ones depending on the point he is making. Maybe it costs $250K to service a booster once it's in the hanger. Maybe it's $15M (internally) to launch a fully depreciated booster. Maybe $30M is the cheapest price you will see on the market. Or anywhere in between. The wide range of exactly what is included makes it impractical to derive a precise SpaceX cost for each phase of re-use from Elon's statements.
Now of course there will be uncertainties in their cost model. Likely they rent the barge by the year. So they cannot assign an exact cost to a recovery until they know how many downrange landings in the lease period. Likewise, all they can state with certainty is the previous costs. For future launches this is not known, but it should be quite close.
Finally, it makes little sense to compare Tori Bruno's cost model with SpaceX's. They use different assumptions and hence get different results. For example, TB says the cost of a launch is 50% fixed, 25% booster, and 25% upper stage. So even if you reduce the booster cost to $0, you can't drive the total launch cost down to less than 75% of the original. That's correct given his assumptions. But SpaceX could assume otherwise. Their split might be 50% fixed, 15% upper stage, 35% booster. But if re-use enables you to launch twice as often with the same staff and facilities, then you can reduce the fixed cost per launch by a factor of 2. Coupled with a lower-cost upper stage, SpaceX can then hit half-price fairly easily. Basically you can only use Tori's analysis for ULA. If you modify enough to incorporate Spacex assumptions, it's no longer Tori's analysis. It's just another estimate of the cost of re-usable rockets.
Take an example; ULA uses very machining and material intensive isogrid tech to build disposable tanks. SpaceX use sheet and stringers.Watch the Smarter Every Day tour of the ULA factory to see the factory floor acreage & enormous custom tooling that ULA has dedicated to isogrid/orthogrid machining & bending for Atlas and Vulcan tankage.
As a result, I very much doubt disposable ULA first stage tankage is cheaper than SpaceX's reusable first stage tankage.
Take an example; ULA uses very machining and material intensive isogrid tech to build disposable tanks. SpaceX use sheet and stringers.
As a result, I very much doubt disposable ULA first stage tankage is cheaper than SpaceX's reusable first stage tankage.
Does both s1 and s2 of falcon have stringers?
I don't seem to remember seeing them in in tank pics.
Anybody have a link?
PS I don't doubt it is true.
If I recall correctly, only one of the two propellants has stringers. Can't remember if it's the oxygen or kerosene. They don't use any isogrid, though. (Except for Dragon.)Take an example; ULA uses very machining and material intensive isogrid tech to build disposable tanks. SpaceX use sheet and stringers.
As a result, I very much doubt disposable ULA first stage tankage is cheaper than SpaceX's reusable first stage tankage.
Does both s1 and s2 of falcon have stringers?
I don't seem to remember seeing them in in tank pics.
Anybody have a link?
PS I don't doubt it is true.
Here is a link with an image of a F9 first stage tank interior. It might have changed since, but not by too much: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-progress-update/falcon-9-propellant-tank-interior-stringers-spacex-1-crop/
I don't think it's fair to compare Falcon 9 to other smaller rockets, because SpaceX builds rockets cheaper than almost anyone else. If Falcon 9 was a Falcon 5, it would probably be cheaper. Starship can't be compared with Falcon 9 either, because if they built Starships in F9 size it would be much cheaper to build than Falcon 9.And 40% more space hardware is minimum 40% more expensive to build.
I think the evidence doesn't support that statement.
The ratio of cost to payload is much, much lower for larger rockets. Just compare Falcon 9 to Electron, or any other big launcher (SLS excepted) to a small launcher.
When you scale up a rocket by a certain factor, the cost usually scales up by a smaller factor.
There are exceptions, of course. These tend to be when you hit certain limits such as the limit for what is road-transportable. But there's little to no indication that Falcon 9 has hit many significant points like this where it's so big that it incurs significant additional cost.
It'd be more reasonable to compare two rockets of similar type, from same manufacturer, different sizes. Most costs scale fairly linear with mass, such as required thrust, volume and fuel. However other costs are fixed regardless of size such as launch services, range control, administration, electronics, software, some engineering, sales etc... making smaller rockets more expensive per kg payload.
Edit: Conclusion I can buy that a 40% smaller vehicle may be less than 40% cheaper, due to fixed costs.
Should point out that if you have a super low launch rate, then sure, manufacture is only like half your per-launch cost because you still have to pay the fixed cost of maintaining all those launch pad personnel and pad infrastructure (besides factory infrastructure and engineering staff). Both Ariane and ULA have much lower launch rates than SpaceX, so the fact that ULA and Ariane claim rocket manufacturing costs are only half of the total launch cost is not evidence that they would be for SpaceX.
In fact, if we assume for the sake of argument that non-manufacturing costs are a constant $300 million per pad for both SpaceX and ULA, then in 2018 ULA's 3 Atlas V launches from CCAFS cost $100 million in pad costs while SpaceX's 12 launches in 2018 from LC-40 were just $25 million apiece. So SpaceX saving $40 million or whatever on booster costs (out of a total of $50m? would save a much larger proportion of per-launch costs than it would for ULA (out of a total of $50m for rocket manufacture cost).
SpaceX reused launch cost: $35 ($25m pad +$10m booster refurb and upper stage) vs $75m ($25m pad +$50million booster and upperstage manufacture).
Atlas V reuse cost: $110 ($100m pad + +$10m booster refurb and upper stage) vs $150m ($100m pad +$50million booster and upperstage manufacture).
In the SpaceX case, a 30% payload reduction from reuse would mean the cost per kg still DECREASES significantly while in the ULA case it slightly INCREASES. (Of course, this is under the weird assumption that number of launches stays exactly the same in either case.)
So you can't use statements by Tory about ULA's situation to say that reuse is dumb for a company like SpaceX.
It also exemplifies the fact that for expendable OR reusable, low launch rates (per rocket family and per pad) absolutely kill economics.
Should point out that if you have a super low launch rate, then sure, manufacture is only like half your per-launch cost because you still have to pay the fixed cost of maintaining all those launch pad personnel and pad infrastructure (besides factory infrastructure and engineering staff). Both Ariane and ULA have much lower launch rates than SpaceX, so the fact that ULA and Ariane claim rocket manufacturing costs are only half of the total launch cost is not evidence that they would be for SpaceX.
In fact, if we assume for the sake of argument that non-manufacturing costs are a constant $300 million per pad for both SpaceX and ULA, then in 2018 ULA's 3 Atlas V launches from CCAFS cost $100 million in pad costs while SpaceX's 12 launches in 2018 from LC-40 were just $25 million apiece. So SpaceX saving $40 million or whatever on booster costs (out of a total of $50m? would save a much larger proportion of per-launch costs than it would for ULA (out of a total of $50m for rocket manufacture cost).
SpaceX reused launch cost: $35 ($25m pad +$10m booster refurb and upper stage) vs $75m ($25m pad +$50million booster and upperstage manufacture).
Atlas V reuse cost: $110 ($100m pad + +$10m booster refurb and upper stage) vs $150m ($100m pad +$50million booster and upperstage manufacture).
In the SpaceX case, a 30% payload reduction from reuse would mean the cost per kg still DECREASES significantly while in the ULA case it slightly INCREASES. (Of course, this is under the weird assumption that number of launches stays exactly the same in either case.)
So you can't use statements by Tory about ULA's situation to say that reuse is dumb for a company like SpaceX.
It also exemplifies the fact that for expendable OR reusable, low launch rates (per rocket family and per pad) absolutely kill economics.
Well said. And one would think this is self evident, if one approached the issue with an open mind.
Elon himself said the $15m marginal cost per Starlink F9 launch excluded overheads and R&D.
[zubenelgenubi: Please learn to use the quote function properly. Please use the preview function to read how your post will appear on-screen before you post it.]Moderator: TomMul, you can't use, or be bothered to use, the quote function properly. Your most recent post deleted, along with replies.
Tory Bruno and George Sowers long time ago said, that cost of rocket is only halve from total cost of launch. Arianespace said something similar after DLR liquid booster glide back study. I asked T.Bruno on Twitter if for Vulcan cost of rocket will still be only 1/2 from total cost per launch. He said yes.
If "TB" = ULA's Tory Bruno, then of course I think Elon Musk knows more about his costs than Tory Bruno. No sane person could argue otherwise.
Rockets are big empty tanks of metal, and the price of that metal doesn't change much. Certainly the manufacturing methods for making those tanks hasn't changed much, and both SpaceX and ULA use friction stir welding (FSW), which is the latest technology for joining metal together. So if the price of the metal used for rocket tanks goes down, it goes down for everyone, and everyone uses FSW for building tanks, that price doesn't change either. So the cost of building the tank parts of stages won't change for years to come.Tory Bruno in his REDDIT post made very reasonable list of things you must add to the booster to make it reusable :
As for the engines, SpaceX builds their own engines, and they designed them to be reusable like aircraft engines, so unless another rocket company learns to build their own engines, and makes them reusable too, they can never beat SpaceX on the price of engines.
Everything else on a rocket is based on component prices that won't vary much into the future because they are commodity products, so no rocket manufacturer would be able to lower their expendable rocket COSTS below what SpaceX builds their reusable rockets.
The only way your 4X numbers work is if you wave your hands and state that currently unknown cost reductions will occur for expendable rockets, but won't apply to reusable rockets.I gave you one good example, you ignored. 3D printing. Right now we can 3D print some engines parts, which must be later assembled together, but not 3D print entire big engines. And also not cheaply 3D print large booster tanks.
That is not a convincing argument.
It is a safe assumption that since Elon Musk is a numbers driven engineer, that he would want the details from his cost accounting department. And they would give it to him.I can imagine, that for every F9R booster reflight, they could need to swap different parts ( they could swap many parts in one month long refurbishment ). And since many of those parts are also produced for new reusable boosters or new upper stages, EM could have only separate info about what it cost inspecting ( scanning ) used booster, cleaning all those 9Merlins turbines ( which he said is difficult ) and he didn't count unit cost of this different hardware into his estimate of average cost for one booster refurbishment cycle.
I've never known a CEO that wasn't interested in the cost of their products.
Please explain why 3D printing reduces the cost of expendables, but NOT reusables?QuoteThe only way your 4X numbers work is if you wave your hands and state that currently unknown cost reductions will occur for expendable rockets, but won't apply to reusable rockets.I gave you one good example, you ignored. 3D printing. Right now we can 3D print some engines parts, which must be later assembled together, but not 3D print entire big engines. And also not cheaply 3D print large booster tanks.
That is not a convincing argument.
Let say, that in the close future we can cheaply and quickly 3D print entire large booster tanks and engines. This new 3D printing methods could be relatively error prone and better suited for expendable then reusable hardware.
I wrote " very clearly " that some new exotic 3D printing techniques in the future could decrease unit cost of both reusable and expendable booster, if they allow you to cheaply/quickly 3D print entire big engines ( not just their individual parts, which must be later assembled together ) and large booster tanks.Please explain why 3D printing reduces the cost of expendables, but NOT reusables?QuoteThe only way your 4X numbers work is if you wave your hands and state that currently unknown cost reductions will occur for expendable rockets, but won't apply to reusable rockets.I gave you one good example, you ignored. 3D printing. Right now we can 3D print some engines parts, which must be later assembled together, but not 3D print entire big engines. And also not cheaply 3D print large booster tanks.
That is not a convincing argument.
Let say, that in the close future we can cheaply and quickly 3D print entire large booster tanks and engines. This new 3D printing methods could be relatively error prone and better suited for expendable then reusable hardware.
Let say, that in the close future we can cheaply and quickly 3D print entire large booster tanks and engines. This new 3D printing methods could be relatively error prone and better suited for expendable then reusable hardware.
Any expendable booster must only reach vacuum with suborbital speed of 2 - 4 km/s, while reusable booster must then quickly reenter atmosphere and it engines also endure deacceleration and landing burn. That is something on what you can not simply " wave your hand ".
If with this new 3D printing techniques you can improve unit cost of expandable booster hardware by factor of 10, but reusable booster hardware only by factor 2 or 3, difference between their unit cost could be factor of 4. Could you exclude the possibility ?
Tory Bruno and George Sowers long time ago said
[...]
I asked T.Bruno on Twitter
[...]
In his REDDIT post 5 months ago T.Bruno actually admitted
[...]
his RD post
[...]
But if T.Bruno limitations are right
[...]
Tory Bruno in his REDDIT post
[...]
Tory Bruno was several times asked
[...]
from T.Bruno statement
[...]
T.Bruno sounded like he exactly know
Let say, that in the close future we can cheaply and quickly 3D print entire large booster tanks and engines. This new 3D printing methods could be relatively error prone and better suited for expendable then reusable hardware.
Any expendable booster must only reach vacuum with suborbital speed of 2 - 4 km/s, while reusable booster must then quickly reenter atmosphere and it engines also endure deacceleration and landing burn. That is something on what you can not simply " wave your hand ".
If with this new 3D printing techniques you can improve unit cost of expandable booster hardware by factor of 10, but reusable booster hardware only by factor 2 or 3, difference between their unit cost could be factor of 4. Could you exclude the possibility ?
I can, because I don't think one will ever be able to "cheaply and quickly 3D print entire large booster tanks and engines". The idea that 3d printing may one day be like a Star Trek replicator, where you press a button and an hour later out pops a working engine will always be science fiction.
Anyway, certainly not in any short term. The best you can hope for is to more efficiently manufacture parts for subsequent assembly, instead of machining them from a solid billet or casting.
RocketLab 3D prints almost all of their rocket engine. Not uncommon for smallsat launchers.
Small regen rocket engines are one of the few areas where 3D printing actually makes sense.
Inertia is a harsh mistress.Tory Bruno and George Sowers long time ago said
[...]
I asked T.Bruno on Twitter
[...]
In his REDDIT post 5 months ago T.Bruno actually admitted
[...]
his RD post
[...]
But if T.Bruno limitations are right
[...]
Tory Bruno in his REDDIT post
[...]
Tory Bruno was several times asked
[...]
from T.Bruno statement
[...]
T.Bruno sounded like he exactly know
And that's just one post. Over and over and over in the same post, then repeated over and over and over in post after post, it's all the same: SpaceX reusability doesn't make economic sense because of what the CEO of their biggest rival says.
Once it's been said a few times, and many people have said they don't find it a convincing argument, what's the point in repeating it over and over and over and drowning out all other discussion in this thread?
I wrote " very clearly " that some new exotic 3D printing techniques in the future could decrease unit cost of both reusable and expendable booster, if they allow you to cheaply/quickly 3D print entire big engines ( not just their individual parts, which must be later assembled together ) and large booster tanks.
But since reusable booster HW must endure worse " wear and tear " during flight than expendable HW, will need to be reflown many times, need inspections and easy parts replacement after the flight, they could be better suited for expendable HW.
Try to quickly 3D print complex products tend to be very error prone and expendable booster need only reach 2 - 4 km/s, before you can throw it away.
But nobody can really know how 3D printing will evolve in next 10 - 30 years.
First of all I never said that SpaceX reusability doesn't make economical sense. My estimates for F9R marginal cost, profit margins, refurbishment cost and total cost per flight were always very positive. I said it already about 20 - 30 times.Tory Bruno and George Sowers long time ago said
[...]
I asked T.Bruno on Twitter
[...]
In his REDDIT post 5 months ago T.Bruno actually admitted
[...]
his RD post
[...]
But if T.Bruno limitations are right
[...]
Tory Bruno in his REDDIT post
[...]
Tory Bruno was several times asked
[...]
from T.Bruno statement
[...]
T.Bruno sounded like he exactly know
And that's just one post. Over and over and over in the same post, then repeated over and over and over in post after post, it's all the same: SpaceX reusability doesn't make economic sense because of what the CEO of their biggest rival says.
Once it's been said a few times, and many people have said they don't find it a convincing argument, what's the point in repeating it over and over and over and drowning out all other discussion in this thread?
And yet once again you ignore everything that I wrote in my posts above. Put a few quotes out of context and respond only to them with very misleading points.I wrote " very clearly " that some new exotic 3D printing techniques in the future could decrease unit cost of both reusable and expendable booster, if they allow you to cheaply/quickly 3D print entire big engines ( not just their individual parts, which must be later assembled together ) and large booster tanks.
It is clear that you don't know how additive manufacturing works, and what its advantages AND disadvantages are.
I suggest you read up on additive manufacturing, and here is one article (https://www.horizontechnology.biz/blog/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-additive-manufacturing-process-vs-powder-metallurgy) that outlines the advantages and disadvantages - disadvantages include:
1. It’s Almost Always Cost-Prohibitive
2. No Mixing Allowed (i.e. your part can only be of one type of material)
3. It’s Slow, and Niche
So the applications for additive manufacturing are very specific, and they don't replace the commodity materials that make up most of a rocket. For instance, the body of a rocket is a large pressure vessel made out of commodity aluminum and steel, and additive manufacturing can't compete with commodity materials on price (see #1 above)
See, again you show you don't have any real knowledge about additive manufacturing or how engineering approaches the question of "quality".
When parts are designed the drawings specify their tolerances and other quality control parameters. Each part has to be made to those parameters otherwise it is not accepted. It is either pass or fail, there is no bucket for parts that might only last for one flight.
Certainly you can't. Which means you should stick to what is known, which is what this thread is about. If you want to fantasize about what COULD change in the future, there are other threads for that. This one is for the reusability effect on cost - please remember that.
I also said " very clearly " that I meant some exotic 3D printing techniques in the future, not current 3D printing techniques right now.
Reusable boosters must always endure worse " wear and tear " during flight. They need to do boostback, reentry and landing burn and then be reflown as many times as possible. More importantly they must be designed for easy inspections and parts replacements after the flight.
And how much could payload integration cost for big GTO comsat like SAOCOM 1B
Since engines are 60%, minimum 50% from total cost of booster, if block 5 Merlins unit cost was higher than 1 ml$ by factor of 2 or 3 it could itself significantly increase reusable vs expendable booster cost difference.
large snip...
Right now we don't even know what is exactly the difference in unit cost between F9 expendable and reusable booster.
It could be a cost increase of 50%, factor of 2, maybe 3.
My point was that this cost difference will not be always the same for every reusable booster/rocket design and it can change significantly in the future with some new evolved tech.
It is a "valid point" and you have no rational argument to claim otherwise.
1. How big part from the total cost of launch service are costs unrelated to the cost of building rockets. Or in SpaceX's case, to the cost of building 2stages, new reusable boosters and refurbishment/recovery of used boosters.The proportions are not set in stone. One big factor I haven't seen you mention is launch rate, which has been discussed at length on this forum; I suggest you review previous discussions of the impact of launch rate on costs before responding to this post, and then try to keep your reply short.
TomMul,Sowers is for reuseable booster, while SMART is engine pod reuse. Different systems hence diffence in break even launches. For ULA SMART is best option in near term especially for range of missions they fly. The SMART system could also be used for US recovery, not something ULA is planning on doing but with proven technology on hand its option in future if financially viable.
George Sowers, a VP from ULA, claimed that reusability would not break even until 10 launches. Tory stated that he can start saving in as few as 2 flights while recovering just the engines. That is five-fold discrepancy coming from the same organization. The sources you are using as a foundation do not even agree with each other, making your other suppositions fall like a house of cards. After your foundation failed, you switched to fantasies about the impact of 3D printing, which you have yet to adequately explain why this wouldn't benefit both expendable and reusables equally. My recommendation would be to go back to Sowers spreadsheet and enter Vulcan numbers and see if you can replicate Bruno's claims. Solve that and your other arguments may begin to hold some credence. Start with a firm foundation, otherwise your claims will simply slip further into fantasyland.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1248307046803550208 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1248307046803550208)
US aside, how do the booster requirements differ between "the kind of trajectories ULA flies" and those that SpaceX flies? I call myth on this one.TomMul,Sowers is for reuseable booster, while SMART is engine pod reuse. Different systems hence diffence in break even launches. For ULA SMART is best option in near term especially for range of missions they fly. The SMART system could also be used for US recovery, not something ULA is planning on doing but with proven technology on hand its option in future if financially viable.
George Sowers, a VP from ULA, claimed that reusability would not break even until 10 launches. Tory stated that he can start saving in as few as 2 flights while recovering just the engines. That is five-fold discrepancy coming from the same organization. The sources you are using as a foundation do not even agree with each other, making your other suppositions fall like a house of cards. After your foundation failed, you switched to fantasies about the impact of 3D printing, which you have yet to adequately explain why this wouldn't benefit both expendable and reusables equally. My recommendation would be to go back to Sowers spreadsheet and enter Vulcan numbers and see if you can replicate Bruno's claims. Solve that and your other arguments may begin to hold some credence. Start with a firm foundation, otherwise your claims will simply slip further into fantasyland.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1248307046803550208 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1248307046803550208)
If ULA wanted recover booster either downrange or RTLS, they would need totally new LV with larger more powerful US to compensate for boosters lower staging DV. Would probably need more powerful US engine and affordable than RL10 eg BE3U. For high performance missions they could go fully expendable and add SRBs. SMART gives them partial reuse without huge R&D outlay on RLV, savings per missions maybe lower but they don't have to repay $Bs of RLV development money.
Just because SpaceX does reusability one way doesn't make it right way for every launch company's business model.
If ULA wanted recover booster either downrange or RTLS, they would need totally new LV with larger more powerful US to compensate for boosters lower staging DV. Would probably need more powerful US engine and affordable than RL10 eg BE3U. For high performance missions they could go fully expendable and add SRBs. SMART gives them partial reuse without huge R&D outlay on RLV, savings per missions maybe lower but they don't have to repay $Bs of RLV development money.
Just because SpaceX does reusability one way doesn't make it right way for every launch company's business model.
Of course everyone here is interested in these questions. But no matter how often you ask, there is no chance of getting accurate answers here. This is proprietary commercial data of SpaceX, at the heart of their business model. Billion dollar deals (and lawsuits) are won and lost over this kind of data. Anyone except Elon who discloses it would be fired. Elon as head can disclose what he pleases, but he's not going to specify all the details you want. That's not his job, it could help his competitors, and he's a busy guy. So your detailed questions will remain unanswered.
I wanted to clarify fundamental things about F9R like : How big part from the total cost of launch service are costs unrelated to the cost of building rockets. [...] Or in SpaceX's case, to the cost of building 2stages, new reusable boosters and refurbishment/recovery of used boosters. [...] What everything did he count between the cost to launch F9R? [...] Did he also count the cost of payload integration ? [...] And how much could payload integration cost for big GTO comsat like SAOCOM 1B ( assuming you have about 20 flights per year ). For industry outsiders it is hard see what all procedures PI of big GTO comsats. could include. [...] Inspections, payload adapter manufacturing etc. But we know that for example many NASA and military missions could add 20-30 ml$ or more to the base cost of any mission. Therefore we should clarify exactly what everything payload integration of big GTO comsat. includes and how much it could cost for one big GTO comsat ( with how high flight rates ). [...] Same also for those added NASA and US DoD costs. [...] We should clarify what could be F9R reusable unit cost and cost difference between expendable and reusable booster. [...] Also you have not offered any evidence that the unit cost of upgraded block 5 Merlins engines is still just 1 ml$. [...] EM said that " F9R 1stage still need 250K worth of refurbishment after he said that booster/fairing recovery add to the cost, using RP1 and helium pressurization add to the cost, we should at least wait if he or someone from SpaceX clarify what everything this figure includes. [...] Do you even know how much inspecting a used booster and cleaning of all those 9 Merlin turbines could really cost ?
It is crystal clear to me, that you can not answer any from those questions above and that you are not even interested in discussing this, so can you ( and those 10-15 like you here ) please at least stop responding to my posts and give space for someone who is able to answer them or willing to discuss this, since this is = actually exactly what should have been subject of this thread from the beginning.
I posted a list of 10 things SpaceX must add to the F9R booster to make it reusable and challenge everybody to make cost estimates for each of them. Of course nobody did that.Perhaps you mis-understand how discussion boards work. It is not up to others to do the work to answer your questions. If you want to discuss this, then YOU need to take the initiative. Start with the statement that you want to discuss, and the best evidence you can find so far. This could look something like:
I post a list of items that you must add to the F9 booster to make it reusable and challenge you to make a cost estimate for every one of them.
I asked you, if you have proof that upgraded block 5 Merlins have really unit cost of just 1 ml$.
To know if this is true, you should be able to make at least a qualified guess about how long it takes ( with how many workers ) to build every single engine part and how long it takes to assemble them together.
My point is that you can not really know if there will be some fundamental 3D printing breakthroughs in the next 10-30 years and how some new potential exotic 3D print.
If ULA wanted recover booster either downrange or RTLS, they would need totally new LV with larger more powerful US to compensate for boosters lower staging DV. Would probably need more powerful US engine and affordable than RL10 eg BE3U. For high performance missions they could go fully expendable and add SRBs. SMART gives them partial reuse without huge R&D outlay on RLV, savings per missions maybe lower but they don't have to repay $Bs of RLV development money.What you've described is not business or launch profile... It's a succinct explanation of the technical hole they're in, since they are building their rocket from pieces made by others.
Just because SpaceX does reusability one way doesn't make it right way for every launch company's business model.
https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
That’s a decent saving:A very good saving. How does it save 26 million a launch though? AFAIK booster recovery may only be able to do 16 million.https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
This is not only recovering a booster, but using a previous used one tooThat’s a decent saving:A very good saving. How does it save 26 million a launch though? AFAIK booster recovery may only be able to do 16 million.https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
Yup. Let’s say a new booster costs $40m and lasts 5 flights. That’s $8m amortization cost per flight. If the refurb & recovery cost $6m, that’s $26m in savings.This is not only recovering a booster, but using a previous used one tooThat’s a decent saving:A very good saving. How does it save 26 million a launch though? AFAIK booster recovery may only be able to do 16 million.https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
Yup. Let’s say a new booster costs $40m and lasts 5 flights. That’s $8m amortization cost per flight. If the refurb & recovery cost $6m, that’s $26m in savings.This is not only recovering a booster, but using a previous used one tooThat’s a decent saving:A very good saving. How does it save 26 million a launch though? AFAIK booster recovery may only be able to do 16 million.https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
More detail on USAF booster reuse:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309532875205861377 (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309532875205861377)QuoteAfter SpaceX successfully recovered the Falcon 9 rocket booster after the GPS III SV-03 launch in June, the U.S. Space Force's SMC amended its contract with the company to allow for recovery and reuse for the upcoming SV-04, SV-05, and SV-06 missions.
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309533181046124546QuoteSMC Falcon chief Dr. Walt Lauderdale: “I am proud of our partnership with SpaceX that allowed us to successfully negotiate contract modifications for the upcoming GPS III missions that will save taxpayers $52.7 million while maintaining our unprecedented record of success.”
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309533573591060480 (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1309533573591060480)QuoteSpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell: "We appreciate the effort that the U.S. Space Force invested into the evaluation ... Our extensive experience with reuse has allowed SpaceX to continually upgrade the fleet and save significant precious tax dollars on these launches.”
One could question why this is to SpaceX's advantage.
Why would they work so hard to reduce their billing?
DoD's previous insistence on new rockets meant they paid to expand SpaceX's fleet.
It seems SpaceX really believes in market elasticity, that bringing down prices will increase business in the long run.
One could question why this is to SpaceX's advantage.
Why would they work so hard to reduce their billing?
DoD's previous insistence on new rockets meant they paid to expand SpaceX's fleet.
It seems SpaceX really believes in market elasticity, that bringing down prices will increase business in the long run.
One could question why this is to SpaceX's advantage.
Why would they work so hard to reduce their billing?
DoD's previous insistence on new rockets meant they paid to expand SpaceX's fleet.
It seems SpaceX really believes in market elasticity, that bringing down prices will increase business in the long run.
I wonder if USAF will want to keep boosters for themselves and only fly on those, as NASA is planning to fly crew on B1061.1 and B1061.2, or if they will accept whichever booster is next up in the rotation?
One could question why this is to SpaceX's advantage.
Why would they work so hard to reduce their billing?
But SpaceX is letting NASA hold a booster for themselves, so there is precedent. According to the manifest anyway. Maybe that will change?
One could question why this is to SpaceX's advantage.That works out as a saving of $17.3m per mission.
Why would they work so hard to reduce their billing?
DoD's previous insistence on new rockets meant they paid to expand SpaceX's fleet.
It seems SpaceX really believes in market elasticity, that bringing down prices will increase business in the long run.
To allow reused boosters and get the cost savings, SMC had delay the 5th GPS 3 launch from January to July 2021 to allow time for design validation and “make sure we understand how SpaceX refurbishes previously flown hardware,” Lauderdale said. “This gets us started before Phase 2. We’re getting going now.”Will this make them the first group outside of SX to know how SX refurbishes boosters?
https://spacenews.com/spacexs-contract-to-launch-gps-satellites-modified-to-allow-reuse-of-falcon-9-boosters/
Every single launch vehicle is a gamble based on past performance. There's nothing particularly special about reuse, there.To allow reused boosters and get the cost savings, SMC had delay the 5th GPS 3 launch from January to July 2021 to allow time for design validation and “make sure we understand how SpaceX refurbishes previously flown hardware,” Lauderdale said. “This gets us started before Phase 2. We’re getting going now.”Will this make them the first group outside of SX to know how SX refurbishes boosters?
https://spacenews.com/spacexs-contract-to-launch-gps-satellites-modified-to-allow-reuse-of-falcon-9-boosters/
I think it maybe, with commercial clients gambling on SX previous launch record that they could make reuse work.
The actual issue with partial reusabilty is wheather or not the cost reduction is enough to open that market.QuoteIt seems SpaceX really believes in market elasticity, that bringing down prices will increase business in the long run.
That is what they have been saying for a long time, and their ability to capture 50% of the global commercial launch market seems to confirm that. Now, with reusability, we'll have to see if new markets can be created that MUST use the lower cost previously flown 1st stages. Starlink might be an example of that, but we need non-SpaceX companies to commit in order to validate that.
Bank of America: SpaceX saves as much as $20 million per Falcon 9 launch by recovering the boosters and fairings.
"If a rocket completes 10 flights over its lifetime, the company will be able to save over $196 million given current price levels.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/why-the-space-industry-may-triple-to-1point4-trillion-by-2030.html [paywalled]
Methinks Bank of America’s analysis is a little off, if price reduction to USAF is $26M per launch:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1313089905023737856 (https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1313089905023737856)QuoteBank of America: SpaceX saves as much as $20 million per Falcon 9 launch by recovering the boosters and fairings.
"If a rocket completes 10 flights over its lifetime, the company will be able to save over $196 million given current price levels.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/why-the-space-industry-may-triple-to-1point4-trillion-by-2030.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/why-the-space-industry-may-triple-to-1point4-trillion-by-2030.html) [paywalled]
I'm not sure that it adds much to what we already know and the analysis of the launch industry is a little naive, but I think it is interesting to see coverage of this from a website with their particular niche.So USG gets a price cut from $97m to about $70.65m.
https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/2020/10/05/how-much-cheaper-are-spacex-reusable-rockets-now-w/
...Isn't that just a consequence of FAR contracting under which (simplifying somewhat) the % of profit allowed is agreed along with everything else.
In exchange for convincing USAF to fly reused boosters SpaceX also agreed to give up PART OF the profit they would normally make when using all-new boosters.
I was wondering if there are still any naysayers on the effects of reusability. SpaceX has now achieved 7 reuses. They were shooting for 10 with F9 due to cleaning and coking issues. They are reusing boosters to launch Starlink satellites after someone else has paid for a new booster launch. SpaceX seems to be saving tons of money on boosters for Starlink alone.
I know that ULA did not go for reuse with Vulcan, except maybe parachuting the engines back if they get around to it. Do you guys think that is a mistake?
I know Blue Origin is going for booster reuse with Vulcan, when it comes out.
Will ESA eventually build reusable boosters to compete?
Thoughts?
ULA should have tried recovering an engine pod from the start. Since the engines are the most expensive part of the booster, recovering them and throwing away the tanks might be easier and cost effective. Won't know until they try. Problem is they're not trying. With SpaceX and soon Blue Origins flying reusable boosters, there may not be enough room in the launch services market for a more expensive ULA.Don't be silly. That would mean their parents would have to put money on the table, instead of in their pockets.
Expensive launch has the knock-on effect of forcing satellite manufacturers to plow as much utility as possible into their payloads, making them also costly and lower-volume products that keep demand low.
Fortunately, Falcon 9 is producing solid data on this, and effects on the satellite industry are visible. However, SpaceX appears to be conceding some level of their competitors' point by initiating Starlink to revitalize launch demand. They are giving the payload industry a push in order to help along their progress in the launch industry.
This suggests the traditional industry is not totally blameworthy, but that reducing costs is actually a much bigger challenge than just changing the rocket.
Expensive launch has the knock-on effect of forcing satellite manufacturers to plow as much utility as possible into their payloads, making them also costly and lower-volume products that keep demand low.The launch cost seems to be considered in isolation but that's not the case. JPL's rule of thumb for project costs is Launch cost, Payload is 2x Launch cost and Operations (over the mission life) is 3x Launch cost.
This suggests the traditional industry is not totally blameworthy, but that reducing costs is actually a much bigger challenge than just changing the rocket.The actual issue is that cost reduction is possible but is it significant?
Wait. That’s not ironic, that’s the way things are supposed to work.Put it down to the perverse incentives of solely serving the USG as a customer.
The IPXE mission was priced at ~50M in order to win against Pegasus XL but other launches are in the ballpark of ~90M despite using the same vehicle.SpaceX doesn't sell a vehicle, they sell a launch service. Launch services provided are heavily payload dependent and vary widely. That is the source of price discrepancy, not "what the market will bear" (which would be illegal when it comes to the government payloads). Of course, it does seem likely SpaceX could charge less and make less money across the board based on what we know of their costs. They are not trying to operate at razor thin margins.
I'm not buying it, services are a generic excuse.The IPXE mission was priced at ~50M in order to win against Pegasus XL but other launches are in the ballpark of ~90M despite using the same vehicle.SpaceX doesn't sell a vehicle, they sell a launch service. Launch services provided are heavily payload dependent and vary widely.
Wait. That’s not ironic, that’s the way things are supposed to work.Put it down to the perverse incentives of solely serving the USG as a customer.
It's like a life form that over time has lost the ability to do things for itself. The simply cannot exist without the regular support provided by another organism. What's the word for something like that? :(
I'm not buying it, services are a generic excuse.The IPXE mission was priced at ~50M in order to win against Pegasus XL but other launches are in the ballpark of ~90M despite using the same vehicle.SpaceX doesn't sell a vehicle, they sell a launch service. Launch services provided are heavily payload dependent and vary widely.
There's no way that "services" involved in launching IPXE are $50M cheaper than a mission like Sentinel-6A. If anything the target orbit of IPXE makes this launch *harder* to execute.
Reusability seems to be working very well operationally but the prices SpaceX charges to customers have not fallen significantly. This means we will have to wait for a cheap second reusable competitor to start a price war and drive costs down.Exactly. Actual competition is what drives prices down in any market.
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1404462824672448526QuoteSpaceX / #GPSIII briefing: Including Thursday's launch, Space Force says using previously flown Falcon 9 boosters should save a total of $64 million over the next two years.
How much cost savings does SpaceX actually get from reused boosters?Enough that they make every effort to retrieve them.
How much of that is going toward the customer vs SpaceX?SpaceX is gobbling up customers from all over. It would appear that the price is right.
QuoteHow much cost savings does SpaceX actually get from reused boosters?Enough that they make every effort to retrieve them.QuoteHow much of that is going toward the customer vs SpaceX?SpaceX is gobbling up customers from all over. It would appear that the price is right.
Whatever they save on reusing boosters will (maybe already is) be dwarfed by the money earned from Starlink. They're banking it on Starship. Then, if they get Starship flying and deploying Starlinks, it all becomes a money fountain.
Whatever they save on reusing boosters will (maybe already is) be dwarfed by the money earned from Starlink. They're banking it on Starship. Then, if they get Starship flying and deploying Starlinks, it all becomes a money fountain.
It's definitely not the case now. Roughly 3 reuses now equals the current annual run-rate revenue for Starlink discounting all expenses. Reuse has already saved an enormous sum. Dwarfage starts to enter the picture at the 100M order-of-magnitude for Starlink subcribers. Even at 10M subscribers, reuse is a sizable savings chunk vs that revenue.
June 29th 2021 Updates: Elon keynote update on orbital attempt
<snip>
https://youtu.be/FqudEnb5ClA
Affordable reusability has become a critical component of spaceflight. The shuttle was largely reusable, but the cost of maintenance between flights was very high. In some cases it would have been cheaper to make new parts for each launch...
Took more work to make F9 booster reuse cost-effective than went into recovering it in the first place. This is an important point.
Things finally clicked into place with Block 5. My hat is off to everyone at SpaceX, NASA, Space Force, FAA & suppliers who helped make it happen.
What was the most expensive part of reuse? Was getting the fairings back in 1 piece the key component?
Booster is more than half cost of mission. Fairing is ~10%.
Took more work to make F9 booster reuse cost-effective than went into recovering it in the first place. This is an important point.
Things finally clicked into place with Block 5. My hat is off to everyone at SpaceX, NASA, Space Force, FAA & suppliers who helped make it happen.
QuoteTook more work to make F9 booster reuse cost-effective than went into recovering it in the first place. This is an important point.
Things finally clicked into place with Block 5. My hat is off to everyone at SpaceX, NASA, Space Force, FAA & suppliers who helped make it happen.
Hmmm ... I wonder if that statement is imprecise? Perhaps missing a qualifier on cost-effective like "highly".
Taken literally, it would seem to mean that Booster reuse was not initially cost-effective. Given the percentage cost of the booster, I'd have thought it was cost-effective right from the start even if not as highly cost-effective as they would want.
From Musk's pint of view probably it means "Cost effective enough to make a financial difference ".. So 10% savings would not have cut it.QuoteTook more work to make F9 booster reuse cost-effective than went into recovering it in the first place. This is an important point.
Things finally clicked into place with Block 5. My hat is off to everyone at SpaceX, NASA, Space Force, FAA & suppliers who helped make it happen.
Hmmm ... I wonder if that statement is imprecise? Perhaps missing a qualifier on cost-effective like "highly".
Taken literally, it would seem to mean that Booster reuse was not initially cost-effective. Given the percentage cost of the booster, I'd have thought it was cost-effective right from the start even if not as highly cost-effective as they would want.
QuoteTook more work to make F9 booster reuse cost-effective than went into recovering it in the first place. This is an important point.
Things finally clicked into place with Block 5. My hat is off to everyone at SpaceX, NASA, Space Force, FAA & suppliers who helped make it happen.
Hmmm ... I wonder if that statement is imprecise? Perhaps missing a qualifier on cost-effective like "highly".
Taken literally, it would seem to mean that Booster reuse was not initially cost-effective. Given the percentage cost of the booster, I'd have thought it was cost-effective right from the start even if not as highly cost-effective as they would want.
I couldn't find the tweet right now but did he say something like use twice breakeven and use a 3rd time you're ahead? Block 4 was only reused once, so probably just breakeven, needed Block 5 to actually start saving money.
I couldn't find the tweet right now but did he say something like use twice breakeven and use a 3rd time you're ahead? Block 4 was only reused once, so probably just breakeven, needed Block 5 to actually start saving money.
Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3
So, making the Falcon recoverable was not in and of itself enough to make the financial side work. It was the optimizations afterwards, all the incremental improvements across a range of parameters (ie related to "NASA, Space Force, FAA etc.") that made recoverability a financial win. It's harder than it looks.
Surely such statements only make sense ignoring the cost of developing reusability?
...
...
These groups were involved primarily in approving & buying launches on reused rockets. I don't think they helped with the actual economics of reuse, they just permitted it to occur.
I couldn't find the tweet right now but did he say something like use twice breakeven and use a 3rd time you're ahead? Block 4 was only reused once, so probably just breakeven, needed Block 5 to actually start saving money.
Surely such statements only make sense ignoring the cost of developing reusability?
In terms of paying off overall, number of flights is key. Makes perfect sense for SpaceX to have invested hundreds of millions in reusability with the flight rate that Starlink requires. For others, like ULA, it’s a very different equation.
I think you're right. And its not until someone comes along with a need to fly hundreds of time a year that questions are asked.I couldn't find the tweet right now but did he say something like use twice breakeven and use a 3rd time you're ahead? Block 4 was only reused once, so probably just breakeven, needed Block 5 to actually start saving money.
Surely such statements only make sense ignoring the cost of developing reusability?
In terms of paying off overall, number of flights is key. Makes perfect sense for SpaceX to have invested hundreds of millions in reusability with the flight rate that Starlink requires. For others, like ULA, it’s a very different equation.
Of course that can become a self fulfilling prophecy. Not developing reusability as you’ve only got a market for 20 flights per year so you can never go above 20 flights per year as you’ve not developed reusability. (For example)
...
These groups were involved primarily in approving & buying launches on reused rockets. I don't think they helped with the actual economics of reuse, they just permitted it to occur.
Think a bit more than "permitted". Price was certainly a factor in some of those decisions, and SpaceX had to demonstrate suitable level of reliability; mutually beneficial.
We have modelized the economic equation of @SpaceX as a launch service provider (leaving aside Dragon, Starship and Starlink) with a view to uncover its cost and profit drivers. The idea was to use Falcon 9 as a benchmark for testing the economics of launcher Reusability. 1/18
The full research paper is available at linkedin, please read it to understand the assumptions and limitations. The key findings and highlights are posted in this thread. 2/18
We find that there is a very strong correlation between gross profit and launch cadence in launcher economics, in other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or not. 3/18
Even with very optimistic assumptions a seemingly very affordable system such as the Falcon does not guarantee to be profitable without sufficient volumes. The break even for Falcon is between 6 & 8 flights, after that point the profit grows fast. 4/18
in other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
Obvious I agree. Also, how do you take in « account » that this will give you 10 years of technology advance against others company ? How do you value that this open up the possibility of Starship system ? While some may look at numbers only, I believe SpaceX make different assumption.Quotein other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
Quotein other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
When it says 6-8 flights, is that 6-8 flights per year? Per booster? Or 6-8 flights for the whole program to break even?I read the tweet summary to be program, but it isn’t very clear. Haven’t read the whole paper where perhaps it is made more clear.
Quotein other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
It was an assumption many people have had, but now we have a study that provides analysis to validate that assumption.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches. But since Falcon is a 1st generation reusable booster, and when the study was done SpaceX may have still been early in testing the limits of reusability, maybe that is correct. And if so, then that should help to validate the assumption that Starship - as a 2nd generation reusable system - can achieve breakeven with less launches.
It's a "study" that's based on public data and "guesstimates". And it's from Eurospace, "the trade association of the European Space Industry". So take it with several large grains of salt.
That said, the main conclusions are obvious and correct:
...profitability is strongly correlated with flight rate, and any launch company (with reuse or not!) that is doing fewer than 6 launches a year is either really tightening the belt or else bleeding a ton of cash.
However, the claim that SpaceX is not particularly inexpensive is complete bunk. And the implication that Ariane doesn't have enough business to sustain a reusable launcher is entirely unsupported, IMO. If they split the A5/A6 dual manifests, and put those and Soyuz on a F9-class vehicle, they should average over a dozen per year.
However, the claim that SpaceX is not particularly inexpensive is complete bunk. And the implication that Ariane doesn't have enough business to sustain a reusable launcher is entirely unsupported, IMO. If they split the A5/A6 dual manifests, and put those and Soyuz on a F9-class vehicle, they should average over a dozen per year.
a. either the Falcon 9 cost & revenue assumptions are overly optimistic (i.e. Falcon 9 operations, general costs, value of assets and R&D are higher than discussed and/or revenues are much lower),
b. either SpaceX is already paying large cash dividends to its shareholders
c. either some other operation at SpaceX is incredibly expensive, be it the Dragon , the Starlink constellation and/or the Starship development.
In other terms: if Falcon 9 is so cost effective, and if investors are not rewarded, it means that everything else SpaceX is doing is way more expensive than usually credited for, this includes Dragon, Starlink and Starship
Starship isn't really cheap either.Explain.
It certainly looks like a multi billion effort (see HLS award)QuoteStarship isn't really cheap either.Explain.
The paper, on cursory glance, seems to clearly reiterate that it's that number of launches per year.When it says 6-8 flights, is that 6-8 flights per year? Per booster? Or 6-8 flights for the whole program to break even?I read the tweet summary to be program, but it isn’t very clear. Haven’t read the whole paper where perhaps it is made more clear.
Quotea. either the Falcon 9 cost & revenue assumptions are overly optimistic (i.e. Falcon 9 operations, general costs, value of assets and R&D are higher than discussed and/or revenues are much lower),
b. either SpaceX is already paying large cash dividends to its shareholders
c. either some other operation at SpaceX is incredibly expensive, be it the Dragon , the Starlink constellation and/or the Starship development.
In other terms: if Falcon 9 is so cost effective, and if investors are not rewarded, it means that everything else SpaceX is doing is way more expensive than usually credited for, this includes Dragon, Starlink and Starship
After all, no matter how you slice it, the Falcon 9 launch business alone can't sustain 10000 employees SpaceX currently has.
For example, Elon has mentioned that he estimates he'll have to sink $10-20B into Starlink alone and Starship isn't really cheap either.
Not sure where you are quoting that from, especially the last sentence. Is it from the study? Regardless, I have some comments.Yep, from the study. Agreed on your comments.
Furthermore, the lurking notion that SpaceX may be using the profit made on premium launches (for NASA, DoD and NRO) to subsidise its commercial offering and undercut the competition, while being an undemonstrated possibility, is potentially very disturbing for both US taxpayers and for SpaceX competitors.
SpaceX may well be, like Solar City, a large scale money losing operation, only kept afloat by the permanent cash infusion from not so well informed investors that are buying in Elon Musk's stated "grand plans" for Mars colonies. The track record of Elon Musk as Chairman of the Board of Solar City (that is being revealed through his court testimony) does not plead favourably for him in this context.While completely ignoring the success Tesla is.
Regarding "c", Dragon Cargo and Dragon Crew development were paid for by NASA contracts that SpaceX won. As for Starlink and Starship those would be the programs that the most recent investors are investing for. Starship has the potential to replace Falcon 9, and to significantly reduce the cost of moving mass to space, so investors would be betting that SpaceX can increase the size of the market AND take a larger percentage of the current market - all because reusability has the potential to significantly lower costs.
Launch is traditionally low-margin business. Satellite manufacture is higher margin usually and satellite services higher margin still. SpaceX is doing the latter two, but they wouldn't be able to pursue their radical Dragon crew and Starlink costs without the cheap costs of a partially reusable launcher. But you can't just hope such a launcher appears.RL seem to be following same path into satellite market. I think long term they will do some type of constellation that will bring in steady revenue stream. Going need RLV like Neutron to make this affordable.
So you gain a lot by vertically integrating launch, satellite manufacture, and services. Otherwise you're hoping for a miracle to occur and another business create a cheap launch and manufacturing solution for your high-margin satellite services concept. Vertical integration allows SpaceX to fully capture the value inherent in reusability (it solves the chicken and egg problem by doing both), and if they're ignoring satellite manufacture and satellite services, then they're ignoring a CRUCIAL aspect of how SpaceX was able to make Falcon 9 reuse viable (in a large, hypothetical free market, this wouldn't be necessary, but we live in the real world). And so by ignoring those things, this is invalid analysis.
But I suspect the purpose of the analysis is to provide fodder for Arianespace to whine to the WTO or whatever about F9 being "uncompetitive" because SpaceX also has higher margin business in Dragon and Starlink.
It certainly looks like a multi billion effort (see HLS award)QuoteStarship isn't really cheap either.Explain.
However, the claim that SpaceX is not particularly inexpensive is complete bunk. And the implication that Ariane doesn't have enough business to sustain a reusable launcher is entirely unsupported, IMO. If they split the A5/A6 dual manifests, and put those and Soyuz on a F9-class vehicle, they should average over a dozen per year.
The study is looking at overall SpaceX finances, not just launch business. They explicitely state:Quotea. either the Falcon 9 cost & revenue assumptions are overly optimistic (i.e. Falcon 9 operations, general costs, value of assets and R&D are higher than discussed and/or revenues are much lower),
b. either SpaceX is already paying large cash dividends to its shareholders
c. either some other operation at SpaceX is incredibly expensive, be it the Dragon , the Starlink constellation and/or the Starship development.
In other terms: if Falcon 9 is so cost effective, and if investors are not rewarded, it means that everything else SpaceX is doing is way more expensive than usually credited for, this includes Dragon, Starlink and Starship
After all, no matter how you slice it, the Falcon 9 launch business alone can't sustain 10000 employees SpaceX currently has.
For example, Elon has mentioned that he estimates he'll have to sink $10-20B into Starlink alone and Starship isn't really cheap either.
It includes this gem of a statement...
Yeah, and SpaceX originally gave a range of like $3B to $10 Billion for developing BFR/ITS/etc.It certainly looks like a multi billion effort (see HLS award)QuoteStarship isn't really cheap either.Explain.
That's still really cheap. The only other remotely comparable effort was STS, which cost $40B to develop.
QuoteIt includes this gem of a statement...
These whoppers raise the one big question: who is the target audience for this "study"?
Answer: bias-confirmed opponents who've had their lunch eaten by the inexpensive launch competitor.
They ... have capsules with literally years of on-orbit time...Interesting observation.
Who knows? But it is easy to see: There have been at least 22 Cargo Dragon missions, and each has spent around a month docked with the ISS. Then add four Crew Dragon missions so far, varying from one week to six months in space.They ... have capsules with literally years of on-orbit time...Interesting observation.
Is this statistic being tracked anywhere?
They ... have capsules with literally years of on-orbit time...Interesting observation.
Is this statistic being tracked anywhere?
Quotein other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
It was an assumption many people have had, but now we have a study that provides analysis to validate that assumption.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches.
QuoteStarship isn't really cheap either.Explain.
Quotein other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or notIsn't that kind of stating the bleedin' obvious?
It was an assumption many people have had, but now we have a study that provides analysis to validate that assumption.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches.
It does. Per Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144
break even occurs on second launch. Profit from third launch forward.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches.
It does. Per Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144)
break even occurs on second launch. Profit from third launch forward.
Seems to be talking about different breakevens, Elon was talking about breakeven for reusing a single booster which didn't include the fixed costs, the paper is talking about breakeven for the entire Falcon fleet which included the fixed costs.
- An external paper making assumptions BY NECESSITY, WHY ? Because SpaceX jealously retains information a
QuoteThe paper is based on public information and a lot of guesstimates. Elon bases his tweets of his own knowledge of how things are run at SpaceX. Him being the SpaceX founder, CEO and CTO, I have a lot more faith in his tweets than in a French research paper from SpaceX competitiors.
Dear God...
The truth is out there.
- Elon Musk being completely impartial and not drumming any hype about his OWN company and his own success.
Yeaaaaah...
...and if my grandmother had wheels, I would call her a wagon.
- An external paper making assumptions BY NECESSITY, WHY ? Because SpaceX jealously retains information and still doesn't share any numbers - except via Saint Elon tweets.
- People reacting hysterically because an outsider (the horror !) dare to attack the numbers and cast some doubts.
That thread represent all that is presently dysfunctional with that (otherwise excellent) forum - the SpaceX hype cranked to 15 or 18.
That thread represent all that is presently dysfunctional with that (otherwise excellent) forum - the SpaceX hype cranked to 15 or 18.
proprietary
Eurospace is an association of 55 European companies involved in space activities.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches.
It does. Per Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144)
break even occurs on second launch. Profit from third launch forward.
Seems to be talking about different breakevens, Elon was talking about breakeven for reusing a single booster which didn't include the fixed costs, the paper is talking about breakeven for the entire Falcon fleet which included the fixed costs.
The paper is based on public information and a lot of guesstimates. Elon bases his tweets of his own knowledge of how things are run at SpaceX. Him being the SpaceX founder, CEO and CTO, I have a lot more faith in his tweets than in a French research paper from SpaceX competitiors.
So, I don't buy the 6-8 flight estimate for break-even. Remember the infamous reusability Excel sheet from ULA's George Sowers? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) That predicted a break-even point around 10 flights. That load of incorrect got thorougly and decisively debunked as well.
And for me, I would have thought breakeven occurred earlier than 6-8 launches.
It does. Per Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144)
break even occurs on second launch. Profit from third launch forward.
Seems to be talking about different breakevens, Elon was talking about breakeven for reusing a single booster which didn't include the fixed costs, the paper is talking about breakeven for the entire Falcon fleet which included the fixed costs.
The paper is based on public information and a lot of guesstimates. Elon bases his tweets of his own knowledge of how things are run at SpaceX. Him being the SpaceX founder, CEO and CTO, I have a lot more faith in his tweets than in a French research paper from SpaceX competitiors.
So, I don't buy the 6-8 flight estimate for break-even. Remember the infamous reusability Excel sheet from ULA's George Sowers? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) That predicted a break-even point around 10 flights. That load of incorrect got thorougly and decisively debunked as well.
ULA's excel predicted breakeven around 10 flights, but that's for a single booster and you reuse it 10 times.
Quoteproprietary
Nope. REL, Kistler, ULA - many old and new space companies (alive or defunct) are sharing basic (screened) information through AIAA, SAE, and the many others technical organizations of this kind.
And that encompass papers on their business cases, including reusability. I have dozen of papers of this kind on my HD.
SpaceX has never done that. We still have to speculate about basic stuff such as Starship or F9R propellant mass fractions. Or the reusability benefits, breakeven.
There would be no threat whatsoever to Falcon 9 and BFR-Starship if SpaceX published some basic numbers - provided they screened sensitive stuff ahead of publication, of course.
What bothers me with the last five pages of this thread is people assassinating the paper - when they expressly acknowledge they have to make some assumptions because, well, SpaceX don't publish anything.
There is a difference between "proprietary data, because I protect my business" and "total blackout on basic information".
Somebody explains me why making public Falcon 9 first stage exact PMF would threaten SpaceX growing leadership ?
As for the paper authors, before dismissing them (or insulting them, in passing), go checking who they are in the first place.
https://eurospace.org/ (https://eurospace.org/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurospace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurospace)QuoteEurospace is an association of 55 European companies involved in space activities.
And major ones with that. You guess, they are well-informed people; well connected to the aerospace world. And yet even them, just like us modest forumers, are in the dark - related to SpaceX vehicles basic technical data, and also basic data about SpaceX reuse business case findings.
As I say up post, they are not asking proprietary data to steal SpaceX thunder and benefit Arianespace. Nope. They are pondering about SpaceX experience with reusability; about their basic numbers.
There has been some hundreds studies about rocket reusability since the dawn of the space age. None validated by flight experience (except perhaps Mathematica vs Shuttle, and it wasn't pretty ).
SpaceX succeeding with reusable rocket is precious for future RLVs. They are asking an honest-to-God analysis about their experience since 2014.
There is nothing proprietary in that !
---------
QuoteEurospace is an association of 55 European companies involved in space activities.
And major ones with that. You guess, they are well-informed people; well connected to the aerospace world. And yet even them, just like us modest forumers, are in the dark - related to SpaceX vehicles basic technical data, and also basic data about SpaceX reuse business case findings.
So, I don't buy the 6-8 flight estimate for break-even. Remember the infamous reusability Excel sheet from ULA's George Sowers? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) That predicted a break-even point around 10 flights. That load of incorrect got thorougly and decisively debunked as well.
You still don't get it. Reusability gives SpaceX a major cost advantage over its competitors. One that is quite succesful in taking away business from ULA, Arianespace, Starsem, etc.
Revealing any sliver of information that might allow competitors to gain better insight, into the secrets of SpaceX's success, would ultimately be bad for SpaceX's business case. Because it might give the competition enough clues to catch up.
That is not what SpaceX is going to do. Not Elon's style. Not Gwynne's style either. So, the rest of the world (ULA, Arianespace, etc. included) will have to make do with whatever tidbit is revealed by Elon or Gwynne via Twitter or interviews.
That this way of working does not "fit the established industry norm" is business as usual for SpaceX. Because a lot of what they do does not "fit the established industry form". Established old-space players like ULA and Arianespace can't get their heads around THAT, and that's why they are so baffled, to the point of being frustrated.
Falcon Heavy expendable is "$150M" which is $50M for each expended core.
I stick to my point. They could still share some basic facts about their experience with reusability. Carefully screened ahead.
I stick to my point. They could still share some basic facts about their experience with reusability. Carefully screened ahead.Why? Give me one good reason why they (or indeed any commercial company) would want to do that?
<rant snipped>
Falcon Heavy expendable is "$150M" which is $50M for each expended core.
So the upper stage and payload fairing are free?
I stick to my point. They could still share some basic facts about their experience with reusability. Carefully screened ahead.
As if the competition was illiterate and couldn't do the basic maths... there is nothing revolutionary in SpaceX basic reusability numbers and experience, nor their vehicles; and their retention of data is idiotic, in that regard.
But SpaceX chemical rockets with reuse of the lower stage - I mean, what do they have to hide, that is so revolutionary ?
Don't like what I say ? too bad.
Why anybody should spend actually few weeks of his time on this useless crap, which will expire on the next run because everything is fluid?
It is useless for internal consumption, it is not providing any useful reference for engineers and it is a talking point for powerpoint warriors. All negatives.
and now they have had 81 landings91. But, well said.
Falcon 9 is able to be the most competitive rocket in the world because we recover the boost stage and the fairing, but still our best case marginal cost of launch, not taking into account overhead allocation, is about $15 million [per launch] for 15 tons to orbit.
"not taking into account overhead allocation" - means just hardware without cost of facilities and staff?
"not taking into account overhead allocation" - means just hardware without cost of facilities and staff?
Compared to other launch providers SpaceX is capable of shifting resources between manufacturing lower and upper stages, this adds a lot of confounding.
I will bet that Atlas V beats Falcon 9 in PMF or any space geeky spec except cost. Having two stages and 1 engine(with two variations) makes a huge difference in the cost to build and the cost it takes for space X to keep the production line open. Not having so many different variations makes a difference when it comes to production costs. The people who build the first stage can be easily transitioned to make the 2nd stage, and much of the avionics are shared. Space X makes it's own engines in house so they are available at cost to SpaceX.
If Atlas V were reusable, you would still need to order solids. You would have two very different production lines(aluminum tanks for the first stage vs. steel for the 2nd). ULA does not produce engines which would itself cause problems. (i.e. The engine manufacturer would have fewer engines to spread it costs over which could mean each engine becomes more expensive and ULA would need to pay the manufacturer to inspect the engines prior to flight).
Compared to other launch providers SpaceX is capable of shifting resources between manufacturing lower and upper stages, this adds a lot of confounding.I will bet that Atlas V beats Falcon 9 in PMF or any space geeky spec except cost. Having two stages and 1 engine(with two variations) makes a huge difference in the cost to build and the cost it takes for space X to keep the production line open. Not having so many different variations makes a difference when it comes to production costs. The people who build the first stage can be easily transitioned to make the 2nd stage, and much of the avionics are shared. Space X makes it's own engines in house so they are available at cost to SpaceX.
If Atlas V were reusable, you would still need to order solids. You would have two very different production lines(aluminum tanks for the first stage vs. steel for the 2nd). ULA does not produce engines which would itself cause problems. (i.e. The engine manufacturer would have fewer engines to spread it costs over which could mean each engine becomes more expensive and ULA would need to pay the manufacturer to inspect the engines prior to flight).
Is this the only way a reusable multistage rocket can make economic sense? Commonality in stages and engines?
I will bet that Atlas V beats Falcon 9 in PMF or any space geeky spec except cost.
September 28th 2021 Updates: Starship launch cost
[Elon interview on Sep 28 at Code Conference]
Elon quote: The marginal cost of launch we think potentially can be under $1 million, for over 100 tons to orbit. 100 tons likely and with refinement of the design probably 150 tons.
With best case F9 marginal cost at $15M here’s what Elon thinks for Starship:September 28th 2021 Updates: Starship launch cost
[Elon interview on Sep 28 at Code Conference]
Elon quote: The marginal cost of launch we think potentially can be under $1 million, for over 100 tons to orbit. 100 tons likely and with refinement of the design probably 150 tons.
I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
$1M would roughly be incremental propellant, turnaround, and range/recovery costs. I don't think it's "obviously way in the future". It might be as early as 1st reuse if they were to just (they won't) go for it with an immediate gas-n-go.
One million dollars of: propellant to refill a booster that has already landed on the launch mount, plus the hourly wages of the crane operator who slings the next starship onto it, plus the hourly wages of the launch staff, for the time it takes them to complete their tasks.I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
$1M would roughly be incremental propellant, turnaround, and range/recovery costs. I don't think it's "obviously way in the future". It might be as early as 1st reuse if they were to just (they won't) go for it with an immediate gas-n-go.
I thought he was referring to $1m total cost per launch.
There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.One million dollars of: propellant to refill a booster that has already landed on the launch mount, plus the hourly wages of the crane operator who slings the next starship onto it, plus the hourly wages of the launch staff, for the time it takes them to complete their tasks.I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
$1M would roughly be incremental propellant, turnaround, and range/recovery costs. I don't think it's "obviously way in the future". It might be as early as 1st reuse if they were to just (they won't) go for it with an immediate gas-n-go.
I thought he was referring to $1m total cost per launch.
There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
That is the plan. Time will tell if it's overly ambitious or not. Also, the tower has already been built, as have most of the parts - as far as we can tell - of the catching/stacking mechanism. So to say "it's not even built yet" is largely incorrect. With regards to automated launching, that's basically what the Zenit was designed to do in the 1980s and it does it pretty well (it's not the most reliable, but that has nothing to do with the launch process.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
-snip-
SpaceX has never done that. We still have to speculate about basic stuff such as Starship or F9R propellant mass fractions. Or the reusability benefits, breakeven.
-snip-
Sorry, I really should have been clearer that I was making a prediction about how an operational service would work, but I'd be quite surprised if this isn't what SpaceX are aiming/designing for.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
Sorry, I really should have been clearer that I was making a prediction about how an operational service would work, but I'd be quite surprised if this isn't what SpaceX are aiming/designing for.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
The fact that no-one has made unmanned cranes work probably contributed to the (likely) decision not to use cranes for operational Starship landing & stacking.Sorry, I really should have been clearer that I was making a prediction about how an operational service would work, but I'd be quite surprised if this isn't what SpaceX are aiming/designing for.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
Fair enough. My prediction would be autonomous for landing, manned for lifting operations. After all, we don't, on the whole, have unmanned cranes.
There are several automated car parks (http://Automated parking system)which do essentially the same thing. They work fine (just expensive) Yes, it's a smaller scale and indoors, but it's hardly miles away from stacking Starship. Crewed lifting (not just men) is useful in situations where you need a lot of flexibly and communication with the ground, like on a building site. Stacking Starship is different, a very constrained problem just like carparks, where I don't see the issue with automating it.Sorry, I really should have been clearer that I was making a prediction about how an operational service would work, but I'd be quite surprised if this isn't what SpaceX are aiming/designing for.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
Fair enough. My prediction would be autonomous for landing, manned for lifting operations. After all, we don't, on the whole, have unmanned cranes.
What's the advantage of automated stacking?The fundamental problem here, to my point of view, is that given that every human being is kept miles away from the launch pad at launch and landing time, and given that they want to turn everything around in an hour, there is no time to spend driving the crane operator out to the pad, waiting for him to get his job done, and then getting him out of there.
Yep, that.What's the advantage of automated stacking?The fundamental problem here, to my point of view, is that given that every human being is kept miles away from the launch pad at launch and landing time, and given that they want to turn everything around in an hour, there is no time to spend driving the crane operator out to the pad, waiting for him to get his job done, and then getting him out of there.
And if they are going to catch the booster out of the air in the first place, a goodly portion of the crane operator's work is already done.
There's nothing like having a robot in a really dangerous place. Workplace liability insurance costs money.
What's the advantage of automated stacking?They have only stacked SS SH once but it certainly looked like something that could be done faster, better, cheaper.
Usually we automate things because it's cheaper or more precise/reliable.
The salaries for a few crane operators are going to be a rounding error. (highly skilled and paid though they may be). Even if automation saves some money, it's not critical money. It should not be on the critical path, which means it gets left for later, if at all. Further if you want to automate something, you need to figure out how to do it first, the first attempts are essentially a prototype.
In this case it's not clear that automation would give greater precision. It's not like the crane operator is lifting with his own muscles. There are quite a lot of systems where the high frequency feedback is automated, with the operator handling the rest.
And using an operator gives a built in scapegoat if things go wrong.
What's the advantage of automated stacking?Speed.
Well the "crane" is the chopsticks, and we already know they're automated during the catch phase of operations...There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.
Seems an ambitious claim given the thing isn't even built yet.
So while I'm sure they COULD be operated manually, why in the world would you?
Because it's already automated, and the operation is well defined and repeatable.
So while I'm sure they COULD be operated manually, why in the world would you?
Because people are smart and adaptable. A lot more projects to replace people with robots have failed than succeeded. Lots of money has been wasted trying to replace humans earning $7.50 per hour. Even when you use robots there are usually still a few people around to deal with things that are hard for robots. Crane operators earn more than $7.50 but they are also doing far fewer than 500 repetitions per day.
IMHO the question to ask is "why on earth would you use a robot?" A hazardous environment is a good reason, but may be overstated if Starship is anywhere near airliner style of operation.
Ultimately I don't think automated or manual will make much difference, but I also think crane operators are more readily available than roboticists. The roboticists should be working on robots for Mars, an unquestionably hazardous environment.
Too many robots (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17234296/tesla-model-3-robots-production-hell-elon,-musk)
Because it's already automated, and the operation is well defined and repeatable.
So while I'm sure they COULD be operated manually, why in the world would you?
Because people are smart and adaptable. A lot more projects to replace people with robots have failed than succeeded. Lots of money has been wasted trying to replace humans earning $7.50 per hour. Even when you use robots there are usually still a few people around to deal with things that are hard for robots. Crane operators earn more than $7.50 but they are also doing far fewer than 500 repetitions per day.
IMHO the question to ask is "why on earth would you use a robot?" A hazardous environment is a good reason, but may be overstated if Starship is anywhere near airliner style of operation.
Ultimately I don't think automated or manual will make much difference, but I also think crane operators are more readily available than roboticists. The roboticists should be working on robots for Mars, an unquestionably hazardous environment.
Too many robots (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17234296/tesla-model-3-robots-production-hell-elon,-musk)
I'm sure someone will be watching a remote feed with go/no-go criteria for various steps, but otherwise why?
Projects that fail automation usually involve unstructured environments or parts not designed to be handled automatically.
They don't allow people back to the launch site for hours after a test or Starship landing. If one expects human operators to be doing stacking and crane work for a one-hour launch turnaround, like they say they want to do, then they're going to have to dramatically improve their fuel and range safety processes.
Not saying they can't--this is SpaceX. But it's going to be a while, and it won't be Elon Time.
Still not seeing why the stacking process would be better automated.
Why not use a remote crane operator?What's the point? All the benefits you list for remote operators apply even more for fully-automated operations. People are much more adaptable than autonomous robotics, but that isn't really needed for stacking.
Operators located in a control room supervise the crane motion via onboard cameras and Remote Control Station. This is very useful especially in case of taller STS cranes where the abilities of human eyes become a limitation due to the physical distance between the cabin and the target. Combined with access to information provided by the automation system, the camera views help to improve the overall operator performance.
Remote crane operation allows humans to be separated from big machines and moved from a dangerous and harsh working environment to the safety and comfort of a control room. Now the crane can run faster and ramp times and cycle times become shorter. This reduces the time needed for discharging and loading the ships, and prevents operators’ health problems caused by poor working environment.
https://new.abb.com/ports/solutions-for-marine-terminals/our-offerings/container-terminal-automation/remote-crane-operation (https://new.abb.com/ports/solutions-for-marine-terminals/our-offerings/container-terminal-automation/remote-crane-operation)
Why not use a remote crane operator?What's the point? All the benefits you list for remote operators apply even more for fully-automated operations. People are much more adaptable than autonomous robotics, but that isn't really needed for stacking.
Operators located in a control room supervise the crane motion via onboard cameras and Remote Control Station. This is very useful especially in case of taller STS cranes where the abilities of human eyes become a limitation due to the physical distance between the cabin and the target. Combined with access to information provided by the automation system, the camera views help to improve the overall operator performance.
Remote crane operation allows humans to be separated from big machines and moved from a dangerous and harsh working environment to the safety and comfort of a control room. Now the crane can run faster and ramp times and cycle times become shorter. This reduces the time needed for discharging and loading the ships, and prevents operators’ health problems caused by poor working environment.
https://new.abb.com/ports/solutions-for-marine-terminals/our-offerings/container-terminal-automation/remote-crane-operation (https://new.abb.com/ports/solutions-for-marine-terminals/our-offerings/container-terminal-automation/remote-crane-operation)
1. The stacking should be the same every time, with the impact of variable winds minimised by using rigid arms rather than flexible cables
2. The arms already have to be able to autonomously handle the much more dynamic scenario of catching the vehicles during landing
Humans might have to always be at the stacking operation, for a while anyway. This is because Boca Chica can get windy. A very large Starship dangling in the air will need precise alignment that in wind may need more precise getting into place. Men pulling cables to align properly will be needed. A large object dangling is easy to pull into precise position by a single person.That was for crane-based stacking which is/was a short-term solution needed only until they complete the tower. As soon as they switch to using the arms for stacking there won't be a need to pull it into position.
There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.One million dollars of: propellant to refill a booster that has already landed on the launch mount, plus the hourly wages of the crane operator who slings the next starship onto it, plus the hourly wages of the launch staff, for the time it takes them to complete their tasks.I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
$1M would roughly be incremental propellant, turnaround, and range/recovery costs. I don't think it's "obviously way in the future". It might be as early as 1st reuse if they were to just (they won't) go for it with an immediate gas-n-go.
I thought he was referring to $1m total cost per launch.
But there are lots of range safety tasks that can't be done (or we won't want done) by machines for the foreseeable future.
Good point. I wouldn't be unhappy if the mods deleted it all, tbh. We're all just bored.There's no crane-operator, the tower will autonomously stack the vehicle. The launch process can also be automated.One million dollars of: propellant to refill a booster that has already landed on the launch mount, plus the hourly wages of the crane operator who slings the next starship onto it, plus the hourly wages of the launch staff, for the time it takes them to complete their tasks.I thought he was slightly pushed into the $1m answer by Swisher. So he added words like “potentially”, to soften it a bit. $1m is obviously way in the future, with massive economies of scale and optimization.ISTM that "economies of scale and optimization" would primarily be elements that don't impact the marginal cost number Musk is discussing.
$1M would roughly be incremental propellant, turnaround, and range/recovery costs. I don't think it's "obviously way in the future". It might be as early as 1st reuse if they were to just (they won't) go for it with an immediate gas-n-go.
I thought he was referring to $1m total cost per launch.
But there are lots of range safety tasks that can't be done (or we won't want done) by machines for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps now would be a good moment to pause and reflect on this coming-up-on two-week digression into automated stacking vs. human-operated stacking?
1) Elon mentions $1M marginal launch cost
2) Explication on marginal launch cost
3) Mention of wages of stackers in marginal launch costs rather than simply being bundled in turnaround costs
4) Much ice-pick-to-temple exposition on stacking including examples of automated car parks
Can we bring this two-week 26-post mostly off-topic stacking sub-thread to a merciful close?
We're all just bored.Ain't that the truth. The lack of traffic milling about waiting on a potential S20 SF on Thurs was noticeable and in marked contrast to
I've read through this thread and am amazed about the fact that some members here got significant reuseability milestones correct (if often a bit later than they predicted :-).
The reuseabilty predictors who got it correct in the early part of the thread seemed to be on the optimistic side at the time.
I found a similar thread on slashdot.
https://slashdot.org/story/14/05/07/0410242/nasa-france-skeptical-of-spacex-reusable-rocket-project
.snip.....I'm also too lazy.
Noticed this post from a bit back and was mildly interested in see a summary of the predictions but was too lazy to go compile it myself.I've read through this thread and am amazed about the fact that some members here got significant reuseability milestones correct (if often a bit later than they predicted :-).
The reuseabilty predictors who got it correct in the early part of the thread seemed to be on the optimistic side at the time.
I found a similar thread on slashdot.
https://slashdot.org/story/14/05/07/0410242/nasa-france-skeptical-of-spacex-reusable-rocket-project
Hard to believe that for so many years once they were fully extended we just let them tip over.
VentureStar (NASA’s orbital SSTO RLV scaled up version of X-33) when announced in 1996 was supposed to be capable of $1000/lb to orbit. That’s $4000/kg today. Falcon 9 goes for about $3000/kg commercially and internally (ie for Starlink missions) can do about $1500-2000/kg.
And I should point out Falcon 9 is about where the early Shuttle cost projections were, at least for internal marginal costs (Starlink).