Author Topic: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper  (Read 25870 times)

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #120 on: 05/20/2018 06:54 PM »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #121 on: 05/20/2018 07:10 PM »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

Quote
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624

So likely between $80M and low $90M.


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4137
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2814
  • Likes Given: 3572
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #122 on: 05/20/2018 07:33 PM »
The official price is $62m for the reusable F9 (up to 5.5t to GTO) and $90m for the reusable FH (up to 8t to GTO).

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
...
They have never publicly revealed the price of an expendable F9, have they?

What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2569
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #123 on: 05/21/2018 01:05 AM »
What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6757
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1790
  • Likes Given: 1766
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #124 on: 05/21/2018 06:14 AM »
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

I think the value is for 3 core RTLS. The post does not show separate numbers for 3 core RTLS and 2 core RTLS plus center core downrange landing on ASDS.

Online hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #125 on: 05/21/2018 06:24 AM »
What payload is too big for a reusable Falcon 9 that can't fly on the much more capable reusable Falcon Heavy?

That's the job of the Falcon Heavy, to take payloads too big for a reusable Falcon 9, so I don't think we'll ever see a need for an expendable Falcon 9 unless it's an end-of-life opportunity for SpaceX (i.e. lots of flights done, & not worth refurbishing).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45033 makes the estimate that a FH with triple reuse has slightly lower payload to LEO (by 10%) than a F9 expendable.
I'm not sure how much I believe that number.
But 20 ton LEO payloads are not very common.

The numbers in that thread are simply total crap. But now unfortunately those crappy numbers will be quoted and posted many times elsewhere :(


In that thread I tried to point out the faults in his calculations but he just kept keeping the original faulty numbers and ignored my points because I could not give "exact one better number".


(he used faulty calculations that give "exact" number, but I extrapolated with three different but better methods, each giving considerable higher (but different) number for FH reusable than his methods, and he just kept his original estimates even after I had pointed out the multiple flaws in them).


In reality fully 3-stick-reusable FH has at least 10% more capacity than fully expendable F9, but the difference slightly depends in the target orbit.

« Last Edit: 05/21/2018 09:42 AM by hkultala »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2569
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #126 on: 05/21/2018 10:35 AM »
In reality fully 3-stick-reusable FH has at least 10% more capacity than fully expendable F9, but the difference slightly depends in the target orbit.
It would be lovely to see actual calculations, but they are annoyingly hard.
The numbers under them are changing with block 5, which really doesn't help.

Offline Ultrafamicom

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #127 on: 05/21/2018 12:09 PM »
In 2017 IAC presentation a diagram shows FH has 31ton reusable capacity, unsure whether it is block3 or block5

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Liked: 507
  • Likes Given: 1227
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #128 on: 05/21/2018 11:51 PM »
Where does the first stage get more wear?  Launch or re-entry and landing?  If the latter is the case, there may come a time in a Block 5's career that it might be sold as an expendable rather than a re-furbish.  If it's a draw or the launch imparts more stress, then I don't think a customer would want to buy.  I doubt if we have enough knowledge to answer this question (yet)!

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #129 on: 05/22/2018 02:22 AM »
Where does the first stage get more wear?  Launch or re-entry and landing?  If the latter is the case, there may come a time in a Block 5's career that it might be sold as an expendable rather than a re-furbish.  If it's a draw or the launch imparts more stress, then I don't think a customer would want to buy.  I doubt if we have enough knowledge to answer this question (yet)!
If their models and inspections show it canít handle landing, it wonít get launched. Thatís a failure waiting to happen. Thatís my bet. I wouldnít want to launch on a rocket they arenít sure will survive landing because Iíd be concerned it wouldnít survive launch.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3061
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 718
  • Likes Given: 1188
Re: A bet on whether re-usable is really cheaper
« Reply #130 on: 05/22/2018 01:38 PM »
Cost of the upper stages is the same regardless of F9 vs FH.

And Iíll be shocked if the price for expended F9 is lower than recoverable FH. It is in the hands of the customer, but SpaceX will price their options such that there is only one obvious choice.

I hope you're right, I've been thinking that must be their goal, to fly reuseable FH versus Expendable F9.  Although I'm sure they'd love to book an expendable FH.  Because that would be some mean payload.

The world could use a lot more FH launches.  That thing is a gorgeous beast.

Edit: Regarding the discussion on other vehicles.  Those that don't go reuseable will have to live on government funding and even then they will go away over time.  (I don't think SpaceX needs to say a word about SLS, they just need to fly FH and BFR and reality will take care of the rest.)
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 02:31 PM by wannamoonbase »
Jonesing for a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Tags: