3 ms·
For context, this launch cost around $60mil and carried $200mil of satellite (spacenews http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-2nd-pair-of-eutelsat-a
by blater 10y ago
For context, this launch cost around $60mil and carried $200mil of satellite (spacenews http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-2nd-pair-of-eutelsat-and-abs-all-electric-satellites/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-2nd-pair-o... )
Spacex are aspiring to a 30% discount https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-u...
Until the tech is well proven this would seem to only be a compelling offer for lower cost sats. Theres also the catch 22 that the first mission will be almost uninsurable. I reckon we'll see an LEO demonstration launch maybe with some cubesats n the first one.
- gozur88 10y agoFrom what I understand the first "used" mission will be insured. Insurers seem to be playing a bit loose with SpaceX: >This insurance official said that given the market’s current softness, underwriters have overlooked the fact that they are not always sure what modifications have been made to the Falcon 9 they are insuring. http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-brief-underwriters-on-the-road-to-falcon-9-reusability/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-brief-underwriters-on-the-roa...
- eru 10y agoIf, say, around 30% of rockets blow up, I don't see why there wouldn't be an insurance willing to write a policy for say 35%?
- dmurray 10y agoNot if the satellite is much more expensive than the rocket. Using the GP's figures of $200mm and $60mm, that would mean paying $70mm in insurance instead of just waiting for the next $60mm flight.
- eru 10y agoYes, that's true. With an expensive enough satellite, even a free launch would not compensate for 30% failure.