SpaceX ups prices with almost 10%.

[RocketGoBoom]

I doubt SpaceX is pricing used 1st stages into the equation yet. Their quote prices are purely for an expendable rocket.

If they start landing first stages in full HD on Youtube, then I expect they will figure out a pricing model and discuss that privately with a few customers to see if anyone wants to be the first test payload at a HUGE discount.

Once they have flown one or two payloads successfully with a used 1st stage, THEN we will likely see an official price listed on their website. At that point they will have a more complete accounting of their costs to do all of this.

[2552]

One thing that may be interesting is the previous listed prices for 2013 said "Paid in full standard launch prices", while the new prices say "Standard payment plan (2016 launch)". Maybe the new prices take an installment- or milestone-based payment plan into account? Would that amount to paying more in total than an up-front price?

[savuporo]

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

Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.

[yg1968]

I doubt SpaceX is pricing used 1st stages into the equation yet. Their quote prices are purely for an expendable rocket.

If they start landing first stages in full HD on Youtube, then I expect they will figure out a pricing model and discuss that privately with a few customers to see if anyone wants to be the first test payload at a HUGE discount.

Once they have flown one or two payloads successfully with a used 1st stage, THEN we will likely see an official price listed on their website. At that point they will have a more complete accounting of their costs to do all of this.

Yes, I know. I was just kidding. Elon estimated to be able to offer a 25% discount for reuse of the first stage. 

Eventually, Musk hopes to outfit the Falcon rockets with landing legs and offer a discount launch service on used rockets.

“Ultimately, I think we could see a drop in cost per launch of 25 percent or more, just from reuse of the boost stage,” he said.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37094musk-says-spacex-being-%E2%80%9Cextremely-paranoid%E2%80%9D-as-it-readies-for-falcon-9%E2%80%99s

[GalacticIntruder]

Nothing surprising.

Musk has said before, inflation adjustments, all else being equal.

FH presser 2011.



What's weird is the FH is 85 mil for 6.4mT or less. It was 77-128 mil depending on mass and cross-feed. F9 is already contracted 5300kg.  Heaviest sats built and launched so far was 7055kg (6910kg) on the A5. I wonder if SpaceX sees the GEO sat builders going lighter, targeting the F9 capabilities, and away from A5/A6, Proton, FH etc.

Is the FH-expendable, a victim of the success of F9v1.x?

Since there are very few BLEO launches, FH might rarely be used.  A 3 core reusable FH might make price-performance sense, though.

[cryptoanarchy]

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

Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.

I think we will be there in 5 years.  With three core recovery on the Falcon 9H, when supply outpaces demand we should be there.  With second stage recovery and a full load (up to the limits of full re-usability) that price point will be VERY profitable for SpaceX. 

[ChrisWilson68]

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

You use the word "only" as if somehow this indicates SpaceX and Ariane are neck-and-neck.

Really, what it means is that the rocket SpaceX is building today to fly next year has a price that can't even be matched by Ariane in their best-case projections for a rocket that won't fly until next decade, and which has had no detailed design work done at all.  And that in spite of the fact that the SpaceX rocket has far more performance.

[Vultur]

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

Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.

Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?

[brihath]

In the discussion, it is important not to confuse price with cost and they can adjust independently of each other.  I would not be surprised if the quoted prices are just guidelines and individual launch costs can vary significantly, especially when factoring in potential reusability of the first stage.

I am also confident that Mr. Musk will make sure his pricing structure is consistently cheaper than the competition.

[beancounter]

In the discussion, it is important not to confuse price with cost and they can adjust independently of each other.  I would not be surprised if the quoted prices are just guidelines and individual launch costs can vary significantly, especially when factoring in potential reusability of the first stage.

I am also confident that Mr. Musk will make sure his pricing structure is consistently cheaper than the competition.

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

[savuporo]

Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.

Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?

Of course, but i have not heard any of the "cheap access to space" preachers ever mention an inflation-adjusted magic $1045.34/lb barrier

[dror]

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.
What does that mean?

[aero]

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.
What does that mean?

For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.

[dror]

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.
What does that mean?

For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.

But the price of a single launch is about 56 mil, so where does the diffrence come from?

[ChrisWilson68]

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.
What does that mean?

For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.

But the price of a single launch is about 56 mil, so where does the diffrence come from?

Part of that difference is probably that some launches are for Dragon and they get paid for the Dragon mission in addition to the launch vehicle.  Part of the difference is also probably that they charge more for government launches because the government demands much more oversight and paperwork.  And part of the difference might be Falcon Heavy launches above 6 tons to GTO, which are at a higher price.

[CuddlyRocket]

In the discussion, it is important not to confuse price with cost and they can adjust independently of each other.

Yeah, when Gwynne Shotwell is talking about winning 100% of the contracts for F9-class payloads at least some of the financial types on the board are going to be asking if SpaceX is pricing under what the market will bear!

If their unit costs of manufacture haven't actually risen - which is possible for what is a new product line - then raising prices by $5 million is an extra $5 million profit per launch!

[chapi]

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

By the way, does anyone know if those price include spacecraft prelaunch processing (fueling... etc. kind of stuff performed by Astrotech), or if they come on top of SpaceX quoted prices?

I have the feeling that these costs are accounted for in some of other launchers standard prices (Proton, for instance).

Thanks

[Nomadd]

IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices.  No favourites apparently.

She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.
What does that mean?

For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.

But the price of a single launch is about 56 mil, so where does the diffrence come from?

CRS

[Mader Levap]

at least some of the financial types on the board are going to be asking if SpaceX is pricing under what the market will bear!

Uhh, you know that at this moment Elon Musk answers only to Elon Musk, riiiight?

France is unhappy, and the French don't mince words.

Sounds pretty much hypocritical, considering size of subsidy Ariane is getting every year. At least with SpaceX you get more bang for buck, quite literally (as rocket launches are basically controlled explosions).

[Foxodi]

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

Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.

Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?

Isn't the magical price point based on the potential tourism market? The target customers for such a market are the mega-rich, whose wealth is increasing at a far greater rate then inflation, so actually even if launch costs rise in real terms we are still getting closer to the magical price point!