SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION

[Ben the Space Brit]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

[AncientU]

Some notes I took from the presser.

Fairings cost $6M each.

$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.

So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.

Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting things, but I was thinking more along the lines of how many launches before they have made more money thanks to reuse than they would have made at that point if they hadn't bothered with it at all.

I understand your viewpoint and accounting.  Nothing to argue with there.
But it is different than having a billion dollar loan that they have to pay back...
Can also look at it as all investment (R&D) toward the BFR... savings could be a billion dollars per launch, compared with the competition out there. 

It actually isn't about the price tag, it is about the capability to go BIG, beyond LEO.

[Jcc]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

Not yet. They recently showed they are open to change with automated FTS, saving the effort of about 90 people every launch, and are looking to "drive every inefficiency out of the system". 

[Jarnis]

Roughly:  "Our aspirations will be zero hardware changes.  Reflight in 24h. The only thing that changes is you reload propellent.  We might get there by the end of this year but if not this year I'm confident we'll get there next year."

Ohh wow, thank you! But lets see. SpaceX has a fantastic pace, but I remain skeptical when it comes to timelines voiced by Elon. Factoring in the Elon dilation factor, its some time in 2019. But doesnt really matter, the feat alone would be most impressive!

Elon year is over 600 days. That Martian calendar....

[ChrisGebhardt]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

Not yet. They recently showed they are open to change with automated FTS, saving the effort of about 90 people every launch, and are looking to "drive every inefficiency out of the system". 

I agree that the Eastern Range isn't here yet to support that but will be in the coming years.  And you also need a catalogue of inventory waiting to launch to achieve that, too.

Another thing not mentioned last night but gearing toward reusability at a rapid pace is that Core #1021 from last night only took them four months to refurb and process -- even though it was nearly a year between launches.  That in itself is a good mark to hit on your first try at reuse when you're being super extra inspect-y on the booster to learn about its condition after use.

[rpapo]

Another thing not mentioned last night but gearing toward reusability at a rapid pace is that Core #1021 from last night only took them four months to refurb and process -- even though it was nearly a year between launches.  That in itself is a good mark to hit on your first try at reuse when you're being super extra inspect-y on the booster to learn about its condition after use.

Combine that with what was said in the rumor mill about replacing many of the welds in the Octaweb with bolted joints, and you begin to wonder just how much difficulty they had in doing those inspections and the associated parts replacements.

[AC in NC]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

It is not moot.  For strategic reasons. 

They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it.  But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference.


edit to add:

And with more practical near-term consequence, it means (again regardless of whether it is used) SpaceX has eliminated all but 24 hours of refurbishment expense.

[matthewkantar]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

If SpaceX could launch every 24 hours, they would be able to many launches between other vehicle's use of the range, not moot at all. Weather can be a problem, but if a launch can go off on every decent weather day, that is a big increase in launches. 24 hour preflight does not mean they can do 365 launches a year, but if they get it figured out, they could do many more than possible today.

Matthew

[AncientU]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

It is not moot.  For strategic reasons. 

They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it.  But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference.

Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades.  They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.

[Jet Black]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

I don't think so. It means they only have to have staff working on it for a day, rather than for months. That alone would probably save tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per launch.

[M.E.T.]

So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.

I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?

[rsdavis9]

I think BO will be maybe the only true competitor. They are going for full reusability first time or nearly so. Is New Glen going to have a US reusable?

[AC in NC]

Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades.  They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.

It really is somewhat difficult to adjust to adjust to such aggressive goals that aren't necessarily serving the current market but are serving to prove out interrelated aspects of such grander goals.

One of the best examples of this is the retropropulsive 1st stage recovery.  It's hard to imagine that it's not the end goal in and of itself.  But if I recall correctly it has been stated that the earth-based retropropulsive landing has proven out a very larger portion of what is required to land on Mars.

Another is certainly the "Tourist Trip" round the moon particularly with regards to BEO mission management.

[rsdavis9]

Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades.  They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.

It really is somewhat difficult to adjust to adjust to such aggressive goals that aren't necessarily serving the current market but are serving to prove out interrelated aspects of such grander goals.

One of the best examples of this is the retropropulsive 1st stage recovery.  It's hard to imagine that it's not the end goal in and of itself.  But if I recall correctly it has been stated that the earth-based retropropulsive landing has proven out a very larger portion of what is required to land on Mars.

Another is certainly the "Tourist Trip" round the moon particularly with regards to BEO mission management.

I think another big adjustment is that ITS is too big for current launch market. Right now we have one launch one satellite. (with exception of arianne). I think next big wave is 10-100 satellites per launch. The market will have to adjust because it will be incredibly cheaper.

[dante2308]

The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.

It is not moot.  For strategic reasons. 

They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it.  But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference.


edit to add:

And with more practical near-term consequence, it means (again regardless of whether it is used) SpaceX has eliminated all but 24 hours of refurbishment expense.

For a sustained launch rate, it's more moot because they can't build second stages at a rate of one a day in the near future. As for demand, they're the ones trying to launch thousands of satellites in the first place so at <$30m per launch, I'm sure the launch market can at least support one a week at least.

Neither factor really matters because relaunching within 24 hours doesn't mean launching 365 days a year, at least at first it means not slipping your schedule because of a delay.

[Rocket Science]

Some folks have commented that they were really nervous during the landing an I must say I felt the opposite... I quietly sat there smiling at the screen watching the grid-fins doing their thing, one taking a little heat... I felt very confident that SpaceX had done their due diligence on the refurbishment with the knowledge gained. The video drop-out caused an anxious moment but a second later a beautiful sight appeared followed by my clenched fist and my exclamation "yes"!
So a new page has been turned with a new phrase firmly ensconced in my mind "SpaceX=Confidence"

[stcks]

Anyone have any orbital data for SES-10 yet?

[laszlo]

So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.

Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.

I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.

So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?

Probably not. It only took Burt Rutan a few years to catch up with the high altitude X-15 flights due to the technological advancements and the fact that it's always easeir when someone else has gone first. SpaceX has now sort of caught up with the second flight of the Space Shuttle (sort of because while SpaceX did it cheaper, the Shuttle reused more of the vehicle and was manned). Assuming they can turn the technological feat into a profit-making enterprise (the Shuttle couldn't), there's no reason that a competitor couldn't learn from SpaceX's experiences, leverage emergent technologies and join or beat them in the game.

Even aggressive IP protection can only delay the inevitable (who owns the patent on barge landings?), not stop progress. Once the tech is demonstrated, the revenue stream comes down to business practices. Building a loyal customer base and keeping them happy will be more important than who reused what first.

[Greg Hullender]

I look forward to the day when they launch a used booster and I'm not holding my breath all the way to MECO.

[rockets4life97]

I look forward to the day when they launch a used booster and I'm not holding my breath all the way to MECO.

I always hold my breath until the second stage lights up. Doesn't matter if it is a new or re-used flight. I'm always expecting something to go wrong. Space is hard.