SpaceX customers' views on reuse

[AncientU]

New article, first posted by gongora in General:
Shotwell:

“I think you are going to start to see that this year,” she says adding that customers are far more willing to consider the pre-flown stages, earlier than the company thought they would. “We knew they would gain acceptance by late this year or by early next year but we are seeing a lot of interest this year, which is great. We are going to re-fly the first pre-flown booster for SES this month; then you may see five to six more this year — you might actually see more. I think initially we were maybe thinking we would fly three to four this year, but it will be more than that,” she says.

Emphasis mine

http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/april-2017/shotwell-ambitious-targets-achievable-this-year/

[deruch]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/05/bulgarias-first-communications-satellite-to-ride-spacexs-second-reused-rocket/

Bulgaria’s first communications satellite to ride SpaceX’s second reused rocket

"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 space industry.”

From that same SFN article, you should have included the paragraph right before that one as well.  It wasn't a direct quote from the BulgariaSat CEO, but a paraphrase of a comment:

In a statement, BulgariaSat chief executive Maxim Zayakov said that reusable rockets were a technological breakthrough that will make it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.

[Dao Angkan]

Yes, cheaper launches and satellites are opening up smaller markets.

From SES April 28 earnings call;

The arrival of large high-throughput satellites, the threat of IPTV and the overcapacity in several regions have made classic wide-band satellite television broadcasting more of a challenge than it used to be.

But none of these factors is having a material effect on SES’s video business so far. McCarthy said pricing remains stable, with SES selling transponder capacity at an average rate of 1.7 million euros ($2 million) per year.

As SES ramps its capacity in less-developed markets, this average price will likely go down, but the company says it has anticipated this in the satellite construction and launch contracts it has signed. An emerging-market satellite’s EBITDA therefore should not be any lower than satellites over Europe or North America.

Maintaining EBITDA at lower transponder prices for some regions means pressing satellite builders and launch-service providers to cut costs accordingly.

SpaceX’s SES-10 launch featured the first use of a previously flown rocket first stage. SpaceX has cited multiple figures for the ultimate effect on pricing of reused first stages. But it’s clear SES expects material price cuts in the future.

[deruch]

Yes, cheaper launches and satellites are opening up smaller markets.

From SES April 28 earnings call;

The arrival of large high-throughput satellites, the threat of IPTV and the overcapacity in several regions have made classic wide-band satellite television broadcasting more of a challenge than it used to be.

But none of these factors is having a material effect on SES’s video business so far. McCarthy said pricing remains stable, with SES selling transponder capacity at an average rate of 1.7 million euros ($2 million) per year.

As SES ramps its capacity in less-developed markets, this average price will likely go down, but the company says it has anticipated this in the satellite construction and launch contracts it has signed. An emerging-market satellite’s EBITDA therefore should not be any lower than satellites over Europe or North America.

Maintaining EBITDA at lower transponder prices for some regions means pressing satellite builders and launch-service providers to cut costs accordingly.

SpaceX’s SES-10 launch featured the first use of a previously flown rocket first stage. SpaceX has cited multiple figures for the ultimate effect on pricing of reused first stages. But it’s clear SES expects material price cuts in the future.

For those wondering, EBITDA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortization.  Basically a quick look way to figure out how much you're making without having to work through all the complex financial adjusting accountants do.  Or sometimes a way to try to compare apples to apples.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:

Mr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.

"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.

"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168

[Star One]

Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:

Mr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.

"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.

"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168

Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.

[M.E.T.]

Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:

Mr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.

"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.

"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168

Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.

Well, talk about taking widely divergent interpretations from the same piece of information. What he says can just as easily be read as: "Yes, we are eager to start using reused boosters too in the near future." It is yet another customer confirming the business case for reusability.

Reading that as some kind of cautionary or dare I say "negative" message relating to reusability, seems a bit of a stretch, in my view.

[Star One]

Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:

Mr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.

"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.

"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168

Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.

Well, talk about taking widely divergent interpretations from the same piece of information. What he says can just as easily be read as: "Yes, we are eager to start using reused boosters too in the near future." It is yet another customer confirming the business case for reusability.

Reading that as some kind of cautionary or dare I say "negative" message relating to reusability, seems a bit of a stretch, in my view.

I really can't see how you'd interpret what he's saying in the way you have. In fact to me he seems to be saying the complete opposite and I am baffled where you are getting the eager to start using reusability from. Talk about reading things into it that just aren't there in my view.

[Johnnyhinbos]

Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".

That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yes, there's caution but I think it's clear he's fine with re-using boosters with more evidence.

Obviously different people/organisations will have different thresholds for what's enough evidence, but to me it's heartening to see how much the thinking is moving on. The question now is how much evidence is sufficient, not is it feasible or a good idea to do it at all.

Looking at this thread, to me it seems there's a general and increasing expectation that boosters will be re-used, just a matter of when.

[AncientU]

Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".

That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.

And it is near-term that he will have a longer track record... maybe 6 flights this year, something like 3/4ths of all flights in a year or two.  Inmarsat already has one more sat on orbit than constellation design.  They'll probably order again in -- wait for it -- a year or two.

[Star One]

Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".

That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.

I think you're reading too much into it as far as the timeframe. I am not saying they may go down the reusable route at some point but I don't read that as being in the short term from what he says.

[guckyfan]

As it looks now the problem of SpaceX seems to be keeping customers at bay who want to fly reused, not finding takers.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Let me educate you a bit here on "customers for launch".

There are some who have pampered baby payloads, and there are ones that have a succession of birds needing to be flown.

Pearce speaks for the former. They will never, ever have a stream of payloads like the latter.

It is utterly amazing that he would even bring up this to begin with.

Perhaps he's considering Shotwell's "flight proven" LV concept? That would make more sense for his business interests.

In that light, read his comment as wanting to see confirmation that flight proven vehicles have more value than expendables. Please note that the recent RD180 anomaly did more to advance that argument then anything SX has done.

So ask yourself, how do you confront, deny, displace "reuse means consumed, used, spent, dangerous" with "reuse means constant risk retired, discovery/elimination of new modes of failure, lucky number X booster seems to always work better than expected we're trying to figure why, want to fly that one"?

[AncientU]

...
So ask yourself, how do you confront, deny, displace "reuse means consumed, used, spent, dangerous" ...

As hard as launch vendors (the competition) try to deliver your bolded message, SpaceX seems to be doing well convincing them that it is just sour grapes.  After all, there has never been a failure of a previously-flown booster.

I just don't think there is a message to displace.

[Space Ghost 1962]

...
So ask yourself, how do you confront, deny, displace "reuse means consumed, used, spent, dangerous" ...

As hard as launch vendors (the competition) try to deliver your bolded message, SpaceX seems to be doing well convincing them that it is just sour grapes.  After all, there has never been a failure of a previously-flown booster.

I just don't think there is a message to displace.

LOL!

These guys (Inmarsat) have flown on just about everything. Economics drove them to Proton after losing with SeaLaunch. Have my eye on shifts in manifests ATM. Launch reliability is a very interesting dynamic right now, even more so than cost. They can't afford a lost mission. The irony that there might be an ambiguity between expendable/"flight proven" in reliability is very peculiar.

[M.E.T.]

I don't see any conflict here. Any customer who prefers not to use reusable rockets will still have the option to pay full price for a new booster. Expecting even one customer to use a reused booster the moment one became available would have seemed optimistic. Now it seems there will be up to 6 flown just this year.

Clearly SpaceX will have more than enough customers for their reused boosters. Like someone said upthread, by the time someone like Inmarsat needs another ride with SpaceX, two dozen reused boosters could have flown successfully. Making the decision an easy one.

And, if they still don't want to use one, well, then there is the more expensive new booster option for them.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I don't see any conflict here. Any customer who prefers not to use reusable rockets will still have the option to pay full price for a new booster. Expecting even one customer to use a reused booster the moment one became available would have seemed optimistic. Now it seems there will be up to 6 flown just this year.

Clearly SpaceX will have more than enough customers for their reused boosters. Like someone said upthread, by the time someone like Inmarsat needs another ride with SpaceX, two dozen reused boosters could have flown successfully. Making the decision an easy one.

And, if they still don't want to use one, well, then there is the more expensive new booster option for them.

Which is still cheaper than any other provider.

[M.E.T.]

I don't see any conflict here. Any customer who prefers not to use reusable rockets will still have the option to pay full price for a new booster. Expecting even one customer to use a reused booster the moment one became available would have seemed optimistic. Now it seems there will be up to 6 flown just this year.

Clearly SpaceX will have more than enough customers for their reused boosters. Like someone said upthread, by the time someone like Inmarsat needs another ride with SpaceX, two dozen reused boosters could have flown successfully. Making the decision an easy one.

And, if they still don't want to use one, well, then there is the more expensive new booster option for them.

Which is still cheaper than any other provider.

And, considering that SpaceX will for the foreseeable future still be manufacturing at least a few Block V cores per year, this need could be addressed by giving the minority of picky customers the first flights on these new boosters, without costing SpaceX an extra cent.

Someone has to fly the new booster the first time. If no one wanted new boosters anymore, you could not charge full price for them. So in effect, SpaceX will welcome a minority of customers still preffering new rockets, in order to "milk" them for that first flight premium.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Keep in mind that reused boosters are likely faster to orbit, because they're already at the launch site.

So for say Inmarsat, they have additional consideration of waiting for a "fresh" one.