Cost of F9/FH stage 2?

[speedevil]

Early on, the comment was made (paraphrasing) that stage one was 60% of the rocket cost.
So, some $20M or so for stage 2, maybe a little less with the fairing recovered.

Have there been further comments on this?
It seems at least plausible that costs to produce stage 2 have come down some.

With obvious implications on the urgency of BFR, as well as its funding.
I don't recall anything else being said about S2, or Mvac costs.

[RedLineTrain]

Rather, I think they have said that S1 is 70-75% of the launch costs.

[Elmar Moelzer]

With S2 reuse being cancelled, I have been wondering whether they have implemented some cost saving measures into S2. IMHO it would make sense to make it cheaper now that reuse is not a consideration anymore. But then, it may not be worth the effort with BFS being relatively close.

[guckyfan]

60% for the first stage sound about right. Besides the second stage there is the fairing that is almost as expensive as the second stage. Surprising to me but it looks that way. Then the pad cost, pad handling cost, handling cost and external like the range.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Well, I guess, you have to differenciate betweel rocket cost and launch cost.

What I have heard so far, the F9-S1 is at about 18 million US$. That's for the 750k$ per engine and the rest of the structure (tank, octaweb, whatever you need to get a full S1).

Obviously, S2 has just 1 engine, not 9. and besides from the bell-size, they are fairly similar. So set a merlin 1D vac at 1,5 million US$ and you should be quite good. Then you get the tank, which is just a shorter version of the S1-tank, and obviously no octaweb-structure.

So set the price of S2 at 4-5 million US$.

The fairing at another 6 million, and that leaves you with the price of the stack at close to 30 million (hardware + production labour cost)... the rocket cost.

They want to earn money, they need the whole processing on the pad, payload integration, they need to transport everything from coast to coast... and you come to 60-80 million US$.

And that shows the massive advantage of FH, they can squeeze 3x the payload out of a single S2.

[vaporcobra]

With S2 reuse being cancelled

Not necessarily cancelled as of a Shotwell comment at an MIT talk in Oct 2017

The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy. However, we do want to bring it back slowly. Currently, it reenters but too hot. On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse. This data will be very valuable.

In June 2017, she said something pretty similar, stating that "it's hard, really hard, [but we're going to try to recovery the second stage eventually]."

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

[speedevil]

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

The subsequent quotes around 'we could stretch S2 and put on bigger fairings and would if BFR is delayed' - at I think post launch FH press conference from Elon also go to this.
BFR is very much the way they're going.

Might damn near anything else happen if that goes badly wrong, or a customer asks, certainly.
May they be planning on some changes for Starlink deployment - again - quite possible.
Might they already have done work on shaving costs - again, likely.

[vaporcobra]

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

The subsequent quotes around 'we could stretch S2 and put on bigger fairings and would if BFR is delayed' - at I think post launch FH press conference from Elon also go to this.
BFR is very much the way they're going.

Might damn near anything else happen if that goes badly wrong, or a customer asks, certainly.
May they be planning on some changes for Starlink deployment - again - quite possible.
Might they already have done work on shaving costs - again, likely.

Yep, agreed. Both Shotwell and Musk are extremely bullish on BFR/BFS at the moment, but I suspect they will still pursue a program of S2 reentry/recovery, if only leading to data-gathering or soft-landing in the ocean. Unless the first BFS test article really does come together and begin hops/suborbital testing in late 2018/early 2019. If that does happen, S2 recovery testing would be a bad expenditure of time.

[john smith 19]

Well, I guess, you have to differenciate betweel rocket cost and launch cost.

No. You have to differentiate between rocket cost and launch price.
It's like confusing stress and strain. Engineers don't do it. 

Obviously, S2 has just 1 engine, not 9. and besides from the bell-size, they are fairly similar. So set a merlin 1D vac at 1,5 million US$ and you should be quite good. Then you get the tank, which is just a shorter version of the S1-tank, and obviously no octaweb-structure.

Apparently not. There is a comment somewhere that in fact a Merlin(vac) is 90% different to a Merlin(SL).

I don't know why, but that's what either Musk or Shotwell have said.
So set the price of S2 at 4-5 million US$.

Not necessarily cancelled as of a Shotwell comment at an MIT talk in Oct 2017

The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy. However, we do want to bring it back slowly. Currently, it reenters but too hot. On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse. This data will be very valuable.

"Not to recover or reuse."
So how do you study something you don't recover?
Sounds like telemetry and picking up the wreckage after it hits the water (or the ASDS)

"not designed for reuse" suggests S2 reuse on F9 or FH is basically dead.

[Oersted]

SpaceX are going all-in on BFS/BFR. They won't be investing in Falcon S2 reuse. 

[niwax]

"Not to recover or reuse."
So how do you study something you don't recover?
Sounds like telemetry and picking up the wreckage after it hits the water (or the ASDS)

Apply BFS reentry heating simulation to S2, measure S2 temps, see if it lines up. If it doesn't, rethink BFS reentry.

[cppetrie]

I could see them placing some TPS experiments on S2 with embedded sensors for data collection. Test performance during normal deorbit. But beyond that, S2 recovery doesn’t seem applicable to BFS since the OMLs are nothing alike.

[MikeAtkinson]

Well, I guess, you have to differenciate betweel rocket cost and launch cost.

No. You have to differentiate between rocket cost and launch price.
It's like confusing stress and strain. Engineers don't do it. 

Launch cost = rocket cost + range cost + payload integration + launch campaign + insurance + propellant cost + a few other things.

Depending on accounting, you might want to include corporate overhead, asset depreciation, selling cost and even R&D.

[philw1776]

With S2 reuse being cancelled

Not necessarily cancelled as of a Shotwell comment at an MIT talk in Oct 2017

The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy. However, we do want to bring it back slowly. Currently, it reenters but too hot. On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse. This data will be very valuable.

In June 2017, she said something pretty similar, stating that "it's hard, really hard, [but we're going to try to recovery the second stage eventually]."

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

Two points.  I read somewhere here that re-entry design engineers have commented that all re-entry shielding is over designed and that nobody has instrumented systems to provide detailed real world data to optimize (minimize) said designs.  That may be some of the valuable data Gwynne alludes to.

Secondly, a pet technology  of mine is Magneto Plasma Aerocapture

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Kirtley_2012_PhI_PlasmaAerocapture.pdf

where a low power intensive magnetic field interacts with re-entry plasma early on to brake a vehicle.  NASA is interested in such aerobraking technology for orbiter missions to Uranus & Neptune.  If SpaceX was able to use this to shave off even a couple Km/sec of entry velocity, the heat would decrease as the cube and enable longer service life for TPS thereby decreasing operational costs.

[vaporcobra]

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

The subsequent quotes around 'we could stretch S2 and put on bigger fairings and would if BFR is delayed' - at I think post launch FH press conference from Elon also go to this.
BFR is very much the way they're going.

Might damn near anything else happen if that goes badly wrong, or a customer asks, certainly.
May they be planning on some changes for Starlink deployment - again - quite possible.
Might they already have done work on shaving costs - again, likely.

Yep, agreed. Both Shotwell and Musk are extremely bullish on BFR/BFS at the moment, but I suspect they will still pursue a program of S2 reentry/recovery, if only leading to data-gathering or soft-landing in the ocean. Unless the first BFS test article really does come together and begin hops/suborbital testing in late 2018/early 2019. If that does happen, S2 recovery testing would be a bad expenditure of time.

Well, I certainly wasn't wrong!

[DigitalMan]

...
...
Well, I certainly wasn't wrong!

Indeed.  I think this is going to be something to behold.

[niwax]

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

The subsequent quotes around 'we could stretch S2 and put on bigger fairings and would if BFR is delayed' - at I think post launch FH press conference from Elon also go to this.
BFR is very much the way they're going.

Might damn near anything else happen if that goes badly wrong, or a customer asks, certainly.
May they be planning on some changes for Starlink deployment - again - quite possible.
Might they already have done work on shaving costs - again, likely.

Yep, agreed. Both Shotwell and Musk are extremely bullish on BFR/BFS at the moment, but I suspect they will still pursue a program of S2 reentry/recovery, if only leading to data-gathering or soft-landing in the ocean. Unless the first BFS test article really does come together and begin hops/suborbital testing in late 2018/early 2019. If that does happen, S2 recovery testing would be a bad expenditure of time.

Well, I certainly wasn't wrong!

Context:
@elonmusk
SpaceX will try to bring rocket upper stage back from orbital velocity using a giant party balloon

[LastStarFighter]

That certainly doesn't mean that SpaceX is actually going to design a TPS system or a landing method to get them back intact, but I'm sure they would like to do so, if only to inform BFS development.

The subsequent quotes around 'we could stretch S2 and put on bigger fairings and would if BFR is delayed' - at I think post launch FH press conference from Elon also go to this.
BFR is very much the way they're going.

Might damn near anything else happen if that goes badly wrong, or a customer asks, certainly.
May they be planning on some changes for Starlink deployment - again - quite possible.
Might they already have done work on shaving costs - again, likely.

Yep, agreed. Both Shotwell and Musk are extremely bullish on BFR/BFS at the moment, but I suspect they will still pursue a program of S2 reentry/recovery, if only leading to data-gathering or soft-landing in the ocean. Unless the first BFS test article really does come together and begin hops/suborbital testing in late 2018/early 2019. If that does happen, S2 recovery testing would be a bad expenditure of time.

Well, I certainly wasn't wrong!

Context:
@elonmusk
SpaceX will try to bring rocket upper stage back from orbital velocity using a giant party balloon

I’m assuming it will be very similar to the European/Russian IRDT missions in the early 2000’s. It’ll be exciting seeing this technology finally used (or something else if SpaceX has a new method in mind!)

[Ludus]

...and land on a bouncy house

[Ludus]

As long as they’re putting second stages into orbit all the time, might as well play around with reentry and recovery. They often have excess capacity. They’re having good results with farings.