5 ms·

Hello, If this launch is successful, how much money SpaceX would have saved by using a 'used rocket' instead of a new one?

Atal 10y ago
In general they've said that launching used rockets will cost customers about 30 percent less than regular price (so ~43 million instead of 62). For this specific case I wouldn't be surprised if they charged SES less than that because of the risk involved in being the first flight.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
It's hard to say but easily tens of millions of dollars. Note that there's little incentive to offer a significantly lower price to customers without any competition applying downward price pressure in that range so it's basically impossible to figure out what the internal cost difference is just by looking at price changes.
ygra 10y ago
No one knows for now, as refurbishment costs are a big unknown (and I don't think SpaceX will release those numbers at this point). The cost of the first stage is a significant part of the overall rocket cost, though, considering it's the largest part, and it has 90 % of the engines (each of which costs about a million already). Since they took four months to refurbish this stage it may have cost quite a bit to do so for now. But they're learning and Block 5 to debut later this year will have lots of changes based on what they learned.
- simonh 10y ago
  In fact optimizing the Falcon 9 for first stage re-use has lead it down a very different development path from most modern launchers. On an expendable architecture the priority is saving weight on the second stage, because every kilogram saved there saves many kilograms for the first stage. So pound for pound the second stage usually costs more than the first stage. Also the cheapest way to build a first stage is with one or just a few big engines. Both these optimization criteria are reversed for a re-usable design. In the Falcon 9 the first stage is re-used while the second stage isn’t, so that’s the stage you want to spend your money on. Also a few big engines can’t be throttled low enough or gimbaled precisely enough for a landing burn. Even the using just one of the relatively small engines in the Falcon 9 can’t be throttled low enough to hover. Hence the Falcon 9 has many smaller engines to give it a much greater range of thrust settings and better attitude control.

Atal 10y ago

In general they've said that launching used rockets will cost customers about 30 percent less than regular price (so ~43 million instead of 62). For this specific case I wouldn't be surprised if they charged SES less than that because of the risk involved in being the first flight.

InclinedPlane 10y ago

It's hard to say but easily tens of millions of dollars. Note that there's little incentive to offer a significantly lower price to customers without any competition applying downward price pressure in that range so it's basically impossible to figure out what the internal cost difference is just by looking at price changes.

ygra 10y ago

No one knows for now, as refurbishment costs are a big unknown (and I don't think SpaceX will release those numbers at this point). The cost of the first stage is a significant part of the overall rocket cost, though, considering it's the largest part, and it has 90 % of the engines (each of which costs about a million already). Since they took four months to refurbish this stage it may have cost quite a bit to do so for now. But they're learning and Block 5 to debut later this year will have lots of changes based on what they learned.

simonh 10y ago
In fact optimizing the Falcon 9 for first stage re-use has lead it down a very different development path from most modern launchers. On an expendable architecture the priority is saving weight on the second stage, because every kilogram saved there saves many kilograms for the first stage. So pound for pound the second stage usually costs more than the first stage. Also the cheapest way to build a first stage is with one or just a few big engines. Both these optimization criteria are reversed for a re-usable design. In the Falcon 9 the first stage is re-used while the second stage isn’t, so that’s the stage you want to spend your money on. Also a few big engines can’t be throttled low enough or gimbaled precisely enough for a landing burn. Even the using just one of the relatively small engines in the Falcon 9 can’t be throttled low enough to hover. Hence the Falcon 9 has many smaller engines to give it a much greater range of thrust settings and better attitude control.