> If the end-to-end launch service is priced at $60 million, 70% is $42 million, with the other 30% ($18 million) that needs to be paid each launch. Assuming th

> If the end-to-end launch service is priced at $60 million, 70% is $42 million, with the other 30% ($18 million) that needs to be paid each launch. Assuming the cost of all re-use is 100% free (gas and go), a full passing on of the savings would mean the second launch (which has a free first stage) could be priced at $18m + ($42m/2) = $39 million. Oops, I mixed up two seperate points and can no longer edit the comment: I should clarify this math is for selling re-usable launches from scratch. Assuming two (and only two) launches per first stage with zero dollar refurbishment, SpaceX can sell two launches at $39 million and achieve the same profit, a 35% discount to customer. This is what will happen in the longer term: there may not be any full priced $60 million flights, so even the first flight of a booster will be re-usable pricing. That said, currently we're in a weird place where existing customers are paying the full price ($60 million) for a freshly manufactured rocket, but subsequent re-use customers technically need only pay $18 million. While SpaceX could give a giant discount to all secondary customers this is not a long term pricing strategy because it requires a prior customer to "pay off" the first stage with a fully priced launch, which won't happen in the future. (SpaceX likely eventually needs to price closer to the amortized value for all customers -- even the first, if they want to achieve their goals of reducing prices, gaining more of the existing launch market and increasing demand).