SpaceX ups prices with almost 10%.

[fatjohn1408]

I did not read this info anywhere on the forum...

New prices 61,2M for F9, 85M for 6.4t on the FH.
Up from 56,5M and 77M respectively.

Prices for the entire FH performance are no longer quoted.
It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

[Mader Levap]

It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.

Estimated target price for paper rocket (Ariane 6, to be clear) that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.

[rpapo]

Estimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.

Leaving aside the fact that its schedule has been slipping, and slipping (as everything SpaceX-related seems to), just why do you think it will be "obsolete upon arrival"?

[peter-b]

Estimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.

Leaving aside the fact that its schedule has been slipping, and slipping (as everything SpaceX-related seems to), just why do you think it will be "obsolete upon arrival"?

Mader Levap is referring to the Ariane 6 as "obsolete at arrival", not FH.  Put the pitchfork on the ground and step away slowly. 

[rpapo]

Mader Levap is referring to the Ariane 6 as "obsolete at arrival", not FH.  Put the pitchfork on the ground and step away slowly. 

Oops.  Too early in the morning here...     And I'm not a rabid SpaceX fan-boy, foaming at the mouth.  I like what they are doing, but don't worship them as some around here seem to.

[fatjohn1408]

It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.

Estimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.

Stay objective please, if I post facts that prices are moving up. Responding that SpaceX will somehow with magic pixie dust make other launchers obsolete is not really objective.

Fact remains prices went higher and they are now hardly cheaper than Proton, which is losing marketshare to the Ariane 5 ECA. So if the FH ends up with a similar reliability record as the Proton (90% and more for ILS launches) it is uncertain that SpaceX will disrupt the market at these prices.

Anyone claiming that the doom of ils and arianespace due to spacex is inevitable needs to check the facts.

[Nathan]

Wonder how much the other launch companies will increase prices this year too? I assume inflation affects all in the industry.

[IRobot]

I think their strategy is simple:

Plan A:
1) Contact clients to check if they prefer a reused first stage for a price reduction
2) If clients don't feel the price reduction is worth the risk, go to Plan B

Plan B:
1) Test if F9 first stage can return to launch site
2) Increase prices for disposable cores, therefore making the reused cores more appealing

To sum it up: they want to push clients to the reused cores, keeping some premium clients on the first flight of a new core.
 

[docmordrid]

1) FH's performance is far greater than Ariane 6. Different classes of rocket by a lot. Apples, oranges etc.

2) has anyone considered the US inflation rate (about 3.3%) + the devaluation of the dollar since the original prices were set?

[Mader Levap]

Stay objective please, if I post facts that prices are moving up.

I did not denied that prices of SpaceX rockets went up. I denied that comparison with target price of Ariane 6 is meaningful.

Responding that SpaceX will somehow with magic pixie dust make other launchers obsolete is not really objective.

If they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.

Explanation: old expendables will hang on for a while thanks to their launch history and proven reliability. Brand new expendable LV? No chance of surviving, no point in creating. Ariane 6 IMVHO should be at least partially reusable. Of course, feasibility of that, with solids and all, is completely different question...

[J-V]

If they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.

If they succeed with rapid and complete reusability. Shuttle was reusable, but it wasn't cheap. And not only because they threw away SRBs and ET.

[JBF]

As mentioned in another thread 10% is about right for a few years of inflation.

[clongton]

If they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.

If they succeed with rapid and complete reusability. Shuttle was reusable, but it wasn't cheap. And not only because they threw away SRBs and ET.

Even after more than 30 years of flying, Shuttle was still an experimental vehicle that was never official declared to be fully operational. It was more "rebuildable" than it was "reusable". After every flight there were a significant number of one-of-a-kind tiles that needed to be manufactured and replaced. Each of the 3 RS-25's underwent a complete tear-down and rebuild. The expense of that kind of "reusable" is enormous and extremely labor intensive and time consuming. OTOH, landing an aircraft, refueling it and taking off again is "reusable". That's what SpaceX is aiming for.

[Mongo62]

I did not read this info anywhere on the forum...

New prices 61,2M for F9, 85M for 6.4t on the FH.
Up from 56,5M and 77M respectively.

Prices for the entire FH performance are no longer quoted.
It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

1. Price increase for F9: 8.3%

2. US general price inflation since Jan 2011: 7.7%

3. Real increase in price over 3.5 years: 0.6%

[JasonAW3]

Truth be told,

I'm rather suprised it's taken SpaceX this long to up their prices.  They've managed to keep the costs low for about a decade, but it had to happen sooner or later.

[J-V]

If they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.

If they succeed with rapid and complete reusability. Shuttle was reusable, but it wasn't cheap. And not only because they threw away SRBs and ET.

Even after more than 30 years of flying, Shuttle was still an experimental vehicle that was never official declared to be fully operational. It was more "rebuildable" than it was "reusable". After every flight there were a significant number of one-of-a-kind tiles that needed to be manufactured and replaced. Each of the 3 RS-25's underwent a complete tear-down and rebuild. The expense of that kind of "reusable" is enormous and extremely labor intensive and time consuming. OTOH, landing an aircraft, refueling it and taking off again is "reusable". That's what SpaceX is aiming for.

Thanks for writing my thoughts! Reusability has to be done right for it to be beneficial. If the cost of materials, facilities, work hours etc. to refurbish a rocket is higher than the cost of making a new one, it won't help.

[Mongo62]

Thanks for writing my thoughts! Reusability has to be done right for it to be beneficial. If the cost of materials, facilities, work hours etc. to refurbish a rocket is higher than the cost of making a new one, it won't help.

STS "reusability" was definitely political in nature. Sure, it ended up as a vastly more expensive (and dangerous to the crew) system than a purely expendable crewed rocket would have been, and this was a quite predictable result, but hey, it's reusable!

The same type of thinking applied to the first Hubble repair mission. It would have been significantly cheaper to simply build, and launch with an expendable rocket, a copy of the Hubble with the correct optics, not to mention that the copy would have had better performance than the repaired original ended up with, and the original un-repaired Hubble could still have been used for spectroscopy and wide-angle imaging, almost doubling the total science return. But it was politically necessary to use STS in a repair mission, even if it was technically and financially an inferior solution.

On the other hand, what SpaceX is trying for is an entirely different animal. The big unknown in my opinion is whether the market will expand to the point where a fleet of reusable launchers makes financial sense. But it certainly looks right now like it should be technically feasible.

[john smith 19]

Explanation: old expendables will hang on for a while thanks to their launch history and proven reliability. Brand new expendable LV? No chance of surviving, no point in creating. Ariane 6 IMVHO should be at least partially reusable. Of course, feasibility of that, with solids and all, is completely different question...

If a Spacex reusable gave you the same payload to orbit and is fully reusable.

Which it doesn't and it isn't. The latter should change, the former will not. 

The pricing of an RLV (especially when the company both builds and operates it) is not as simple as you think. 

I found t very interesting that when Shotwell talked she said a full F9 launch was about $100m, like an Ariane 5, once all the trimmings were included.

Shuttle taught many valuable lessons about reusability. Mainly how not to do it.  I will remind people most of the STS's difficulties came from the insane funding profile that Nixon's OMB insisted on. A fair chunk of the rest came from the decision to award the SRB contract to the company rated last in the original selection competition. 

Neither is an issue for Spacex.

[bob the martian]

Truth be told,

I'm rather suprised it's taken SpaceX this long to up their prices.  They've managed to keep the costs low for about a decade, but it had to happen sooner or later.

I've often felt that SpaceX were keeping their prices artificially low just to attract business (nothing empirical to base that on, just a gut feeling of "it can't be *that* cheap relative to everyone else").  Not enough to operate at a huge loss, and ISTR them claiming to be profitable, but cash flow has probably been a bit tight.  Now that they've had some successful launches and are sailing into uncharted waters with F9R and DII and MCT and Raptor, they feel justified in adjusting their prices.  I'm surprised it's as little as 10%, honestly.

[yg1968]

Now SpaceX will be able to offer 10% off for flights with reused first stages.