10 ms·
The obvious question: how much cheaper should this make it, per pound, to put something in orbit?
by mr_overalls 10y ago
The obvious question: how much cheaper should this make it, per pound, to put something in orbit?
- srssays 10y agoNot much, because SpaceX is currently the cheapest launch provider in its category (except perhaps the Russians). And their capacity is maxed out. If anything they should put the price up.
- curtis 10y ago> And their capacity is maxed out. Re-usable rockets should increase their capacity...
- blackguardx 10y agoIs their capacity limited by rocket construction or pad operations?
- jessriedel 10y agoIt's a bit a both right now, but I think the constraints from launch sites become much more relaxed in a couple of years when Boca Chica opens up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_South_Texas_Launch_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_South_Texas_Launch_Site
- artursapek 10y agoIs there a reason launch pads tend to be on a shore?
- zaphoyd 10y agoRockets generally want to fly over unpopulated areas to avoid raining debris on people should they explode. They get a boost as well when flying east due to the earths rotation. As a result, launch pads are located in areas where the rocket will be able to fly east over an ocean or unpopulated area.
- WalterBright 10y ago> a boost as well when flying east due to the earths rotation This will slow the earth's rotation slightly. Future generations will rue our profligate wastage of earth's angular momentum.
- bashinator 10y agoIf that's a problem, then I'll be a happy ancestor
- dotancohen 10y agoIf the hardware comes back down then it's returning the angular momentum on burn-up or landing. Only interplanetary hardware is robbing posterity of angular momentum.
- snowwrestler 10y agoStop Global Slowing!
- TeMPOraL 10y agoOr at least #SlowGlobalSlowing!
- AstralStorm 10y agoWe can always launch more rockets the other way.
- schoen 10y agoMy understanding is to make it less likely to hit populated areas in case of a launch failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 There's an energy benefit for some launches at lower latitudes, but that's separate from being near an ocean: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-launches-to-orbit-take-place-at-low-latitudes https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-launches-to-orbit-take-pla...
- benzofuran 10y agotypically it's for if things go poorly - a lot less mess to clean up if it's on the bottom of the sea
- nickik 10y agoCurrently pad operations. Soon, building of second stages.
- zzalpha 10y agoI don't think that's the question. You're speaking of what they charge. I'm curious (and fwiw I'm not the OP, so I have no idea if they were asking this... :) what it costs. Put another way, I wonder what this does to their margins?
- agildehaus 10y agoAnother thing to think about is SpaceX's customers don't buy the rockets, they buy the launch. So every first stage a customer pays SpaceX to build, once it completes it main mission, is now a stage SpaceX can use for their own purpose ... like building a LEO constellation of 11,943 satellites.
- AstralStorm 10y agoWhy would you want that much trash in LEO?
- justinjlynn 10y agoBecause it doesn't have to stay there.
- Kubuxu 10y agoLEO in most cases decay by themselves as for small amounts of air still being present. This means that LEO trash will burn in the atmosphere sooner or later.
- gnode 10y agoTrash in LEO goes away; trash in GEO doesn't. The LEO satellite constellation replaces (with much lower latency, and greater locality) a bunch of GEO satellites.
- Tuna-Fish 10y agoDepends on how many times they can re-use a core. The upper limit comes from the fact that they are currently only reusing the first stage, and that the first stage core is ~75% of the cost of a launch. So, if they can use a core n times, they get a % discount: 2 38% 3 50% 4 56% 5 60% 10 68% They are planning on additional future reuse, the next portion is probably recovering the fairings.
- Diederich 10y agoYes. One of Elon Musk's core goals is to make humanity a multi-planetary species. To do that, he needs to make a lot of money. At this point, the other commercial orbital lift companies are basically cooked, it's a matter of time. Blue Origin could be an interesting player, but who knows. The question is this: can he drive even more demand by lowering the price somewhat? That's an interesting question, and one I'm sure being discussed at SpaceX.
- ams6110 10y agoChina is reportedly poised to challenge SpaceX in the next decade or two.
- GauntletWizard 10y agoAll the more reason Musk should be printing money with his launch-price advantage now.
- valuearb 10y ago"poised" and "a decade or so" aren't very congruent.
- wayn3 10y agoElon Musk wants to be on mars in "a decade or two".
- mvpu 10y agoI once heard Elon quote these: cost of a launch is roughly $60 million. Assuming the rocket can be reused 60 times it'll go down to about $1000 which is what he wants. IOW, he wants to make space travel ad cheap as international flight travel.
- jessriedel 10y agoEither you misinterpreted or he was being hyperbolic. There are lots of other costs involved in a launch that do not scale like the reusable first stage. A sub $10M launch cost is very optimistic and would be considered a stupendous success.
- mvpu 10y agoI heard the cost of fuel and other logistical things per flight is less than $300k but sorry guys can't find the video..
- jessriedel 10y agoFuel is ~$200k. "Logistical things" is much more.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoLogistics is getting streamlined as well. Range safety used to take ~150 people per launch. The Falcon 9 is now responsible for its own range safety, and will terminate itself faster than a human would if it deviates from its ascent profile substantially. (This was developed by the Air Force in partnership with SpaceX) http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1095084/air-force-eastern-range-innovates-expedites-access-to-space http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/10950...
- StavrosK 10y ago> cost of a launch is roughly $60 million. Assuming the rocket can be reused 60 times it'll go down to about $1000 Don't you mean $1m?
- MarkMc 10y agoIn the short term SpaceX will not reduce their prices - they will simply make a larger profit. When SpaceX has effective competition that can deploy a single ticket multiple times, prices will drop dramatically.
- tempestn 10y agoThat might be one logical approach, but it's not actually true. "Flight tested" rockets already offer a 10% discount to customers, and they say the plan is to get to 30% eventually.
- ygra 10y agoDid anyone ever state the discount SES got? To my knowledge all we got were vague notions. In any case, considering the four-month refurbishment the reflown core may actually have ended up more expensive than a new one. That's okay for now. SpaceX offered a discount to get a customer to fly on it instead of having to pay the launch cost completely on their own. Currently I wouldn't say the discount is any indication about how much cheaper reflying a core currently is. But with the first stage being about ¾ of the launch cost there are of course great potential savings, which is where the 30 % come in.
- ATsch 10y agoSES explicity stated that they would not disclose the discount they recieved, but confirmed they recieved a discount.
- xorxornop 10y agoNo doubt it was hefty, because of first-mover advantage - SpaceX badly needed an entity willing to take the _perceived_ risk, and SES was not only willing but eager to do it. I bet they got a great discount.
- Eridrus 10y agoMaybe. Or maybe making it cheaper to fly will increase demand enough that it makes sense to lower prices to meet it
- InclinedPlane 10y agoSort of depends on the details, some of which we don't know (we don't know actual internal costs, for example, only external prices which include markup). Here's some quick napkin math though: We know the price of a Falcon 9 launch is about $65 million, and we know that the hardware cost of the first stage is about 3/4 of the total hardware cost. Assuming everything has the same profit margin markup that puts the effective price of the first stage at $49 million. They've said they think they can do 10 launches per booster core, if so that puts the amortized price at only $4.9 million per flight. Add the $16 million for the 2nd stage and that gives you a ballpark figure of $21 million per flight with the same profit percentages they have today. Add a few million dollars per flight for operational overhead and the cost of other components and you're probably not far off a reasonable estimate for what they could offer, let's call it $25 million just to be safe. At 22,800 kg to LEO, that's $1000 per kg ($500/lb). How much lower that could go depends on how much profit margin SpaceX would want to shave off and how much overhead they have for reuse. In comparison, the industry standard Ariane 5 can do roughly $8k per kg to LEO, the Atlas V is similar, the Proton is about $4k/kg.
- api 10y agoWhat's the prospect for second stage reuse? I know they have talked about it but my understanding is it is much harder due to energies involved and payload margin.
- Coincoin 10y agoMy understanding is second stage is harder, first because of the rocket equation. Every Kg on the second stage is much more costly than an additional Kg on the first stage. Second, the second stage needs to go into orbit before it can return. That's much more speed and a harder reentry. Third, you have to deal with thrust. Falcon 9 has 9 engines, which means the landing burn can uses 1 engine for 1/9 of the thrust. This is still too much power and F9 currently needs to do a suicide burn. You can't do that with only one engine on a stage that is 1/10 lighter than the first one. Fourth, second stage has a vacuum engine with a nozzle not fit for atmospheric use. It's so thin and flexible it would probably crumble or disintegrate upon entry.
- imh 10y ago> SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell has said that customers that fly on a used Falcon 9 could eventually get discounts of up to 30 percent.
- hinkley 10y agoFor sale. One rocket. Only used once, on a Sunday. $2M OBO. Ask for Elon.
- peter303 10y agoCuts costs about 60%. A bit better than spacebshuttle economics which was more like 40%.
- venomsnake 10y agoThe space shuttle was also really good at killing its crews for no good reason ...
- valuearb 10y agoSpaceshuttle economics were $50k/lb, so not like SpaceX.
- matt4077 10y agoThe Atlantic writes that launch costs are expected to be 30% lower (40 Million instead of 60 Million), butt customers currently only get 10% off: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/spacex-reusable-rocket/521475/?utm_source=feed https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/spacex-r...