6 ms·

The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per pound, to put a payload in orbit?

by mr_overalls 10y ago

RivieraKid 10y ago
30%
- tdy721 10y ago
  As dictated by the market monopoly holder.
  - nickik 10y ago
    What? Prices are only dictated if you dictate to somebody else. They are just setting there own price. Also, there is no monopoly situation.
    - Tepix 10y ago
      They have a monopoly on reusable orbit-class rockets (for now).
      - nickik 10y ago
        Fortunately the market is about putting stuff into orbit, not about putting stuff into orbit with reusable rocket. ULA also has monopoly in Hydolox rockets. That however is not relevant and its not a useful use of the word monopoly.
        Robotbeat 10y ago
        You're missing the point. It's perfectly relevant to point out that SpaceX is now able to charge much more for reuse than the marginal cost, effectively being able to charge monopoly rent for being the only player on the field with a reuse capability. Of course, it's not a total monopoly on launch period, but that's missing the point. A 30% reduction in price doesn't represent the ultimate lowest cost of reuse because currently there's no competition for reuse.
        politician 10y ago
        Indeed, they are limiting the discounts to 10% [1]. > What is your current thinking on the savings for customers using a reused Falcon 9 first stage? Is a 30 percent discount realistic? > We are not decreasing the price by 30 percent right now for recovered and reused vehicles. We’re offering about a 10 percent price reduction. I’d rather fly on an airplane that’s flown before as I’d feel more comfortable with its reliability. > At this point that is a reasonable reduction and then, as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve that, then we might get a little bit more. But in general, it’s about 10 percent right now. [1] http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/ http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-di...
ncallaway 10y ago
Well, if you go to the extreme case (the entire rocket is reusable with _no_ refurbishment) the cost of rocket fuel is $200,000 while the approximate cost of the hardware is in the range of $60M. So, in the extreme case it would be _massively_ cheaper. On the order of 99% savings. At the moment, SpaceX is only reusing a portion of the rocket (the first stage, not the second stage or the fairings). And that re-used portion requires some refurbishment. SpaceX estimates it's 30% cheaper per launch right now. Over the next few years SpaceX will probably bring that cost down (though they won't necessarily pass that cost on to the consumer — they could very well just enjoy the extra margins). I'm guessing they can realistically get to 50-70% cost savings per launch over the next few years. though they are working on recovering the fairing, and attempting something related to that today.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  > though they won't necessarily pass that cost on to the consumer — they could very well just enjoy the extra margins Good point; it depends on how much they could expect demand to grow if the prices were lower.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  I honestly don't think they'll _have_ the chance to enjoy the margins. There will likely be a lot more competition in the future. The Chinese, Russians, Indians, blue origin, vector space systems, and United Launch Alliance finally getting their shit together, trying to do a redesign to better compete.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    One could believe the Russians could match this achievement, with enough development effort, if they chose to make that effort, which they won't. All of the other parties you list have many challenges to meet before they attempt to land their rockets on tails of flame.
    - kilroy123 10y ago
      I agree it's unlikely. However, they did privatize Roscosmos, so who knows. They might get their shit together.
theothermkn 10y ago
I've run through this calculation here before, but it's always interesting to rehash: Both LOX and kerosene are about the price of milk. If we assume that a gallon of either weighs about 7 lbs, then it takes, at 1% mass fraction, 99 lbs, or about 14 gallons, of fuel and oxidizer to put a pound of payload into orbit. At a 2% mass fraction, it's only 7 gallons. Call it $3.50 per gallon, so the fuel cost for a pound of payload is only about $25-$50. It's truly negligible compared to the cost of the rocket, whose costs are tied mainly literally to paperwork, due to the very tight margins on the factors of safety. The rest of the equilibrium cost is going to be amortizing that rocket over as many launches as is responsible.
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  Musk has often said that the first stage is 70% of the cost. And that the fuel cost are negligible.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  Even less than that for ITS. The tanker version of ITS is supposed to (eventually) achieve about $9/kg to orbit, with $4 of that being the cost of the propellant. Or, about $2 per pound for the propellant (if you want to use barbarous units).
Robotbeat 10y ago
Not much at first. 30%, perhaps. But as reuse is tweaked, more things are recovered, less refurbishment needed, things can get really cheap. Ultimately, SpaceX wants to get the cost to orbit for propellant down to about $9/kg. From the current $10,000 to $2000 per kg. For propellant launches on ITS, which will be larger and will have the booster land on the launch cradle and have the upperstage be fully reusable: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.p... (based on figures given on page 36 and 41) $9/kg is ridiculously cheap ($4/pound). 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than current costs. More general payloads will cost more (due to processing requirements), but that gives you an idea. The idea is you reduce the cost of the launch to about twice the cost of the propellant. The only way that's feasible is rapid reuse and by launching a lot. Also, ITS will use the cheapest source of energy today: methane. Can also be synthesized from air, water, and sunlight as SpaceX is planning on Mars. The energy costs of achieving orbit is about the same energy costs as flying around the world, for the same payload. So it's not, in principle, absurdly expensive (relative to current per-person energy usage) just from an energy point of view to fly stuff to orbit.

The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per pound, to put a payload in orbit?

RivieraKid 10y ago

30%

tdy721 10y ago
As dictated by the market monopoly holder.
- nickik 10y ago
  What? Prices are only dictated if you dictate to somebody else. They are just setting there own price. Also, there is no monopoly situation.
  - Tepix 10y ago
    They have a monopoly on reusable orbit-class rockets (for now).
    - nickik 10y ago
      Fortunately the market is about putting stuff into orbit, not about putting stuff into orbit with reusable rocket. ULA also has monopoly in Hydolox rockets. That however is not relevant and its not a useful use of the word monopoly.
      - Robotbeat 10y ago
        You're missing the point. It's perfectly relevant to point out that SpaceX is now able to charge much more for reuse than the marginal cost, effectively being able to charge monopoly rent for being the only player on the field with a reuse capability. Of course, it's not a total monopoly on launch period, but that's missing the point. A 30% reduction in price doesn't represent the ultimate lowest cost of reuse because currently there's no competition for reuse.
        politician 10y ago
        Indeed, they are limiting the discounts to 10% [1]. > What is your current thinking on the savings for customers using a reused Falcon 9 first stage? Is a 30 percent discount realistic? > We are not decreasing the price by 30 percent right now for recovered and reused vehicles. We’re offering about a 10 percent price reduction. I’d rather fly on an airplane that’s flown before as I’d feel more comfortable with its reliability. > At this point that is a reasonable reduction and then, as we recover some of the costs associated with the investment that we put into the Falcon 9 to achieve that, then we might get a little bit more. But in general, it’s about 10 percent right now. [1] http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/ http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-di...

ncallaway 10y ago

Well, if you go to the extreme case (the entire rocket is reusable with _no_ refurbishment) the cost of rocket fuel is $200,000 while the approximate cost of the hardware is in the range of $60M. So, in the extreme case it would be _massively_ cheaper. On the order of 99% savings. At the moment, SpaceX is only reusing a portion of the rocket (the first stage, not the second stage or the fairings). And that re-used portion requires some refurbishment. SpaceX estimates it's 30% cheaper per launch right now. Over the next few years SpaceX will probably bring that cost down (though they won't necessarily pass that cost on to the consumer — they could very well just enjoy the extra margins). I'm guessing they can realistically get to 50-70% cost savings per launch over the next few years. though they are working on recovering the fairing, and attempting something related to that today.

kazagistar 10y ago
> though they won't necessarily pass that cost on to the consumer — they could very well just enjoy the extra margins Good point; it depends on how much they could expect demand to grow if the prices were lower.
kilroy123 10y ago
I honestly don't think they'll _have_ the chance to enjoy the margins. There will likely be a lot more competition in the future. The Chinese, Russians, Indians, blue origin, vector space systems, and United Launch Alliance finally getting their shit together, trying to do a redesign to better compete.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  One could believe the Russians could match this achievement, with enough development effort, if they chose to make that effort, which they won't. All of the other parties you list have many challenges to meet before they attempt to land their rockets on tails of flame.
  - kilroy123 10y ago
    I agree it's unlikely. However, they did privatize Roscosmos, so who knows. They might get their shit together.

theothermkn 10y ago

I've run through this calculation here before, but it's always interesting to rehash: Both LOX and kerosene are about the price of milk. If we assume that a gallon of either weighs about 7 lbs, then it takes, at 1% mass fraction, 99 lbs, or about 14 gallons, of fuel and oxidizer to put a pound of payload into orbit. At a 2% mass fraction, it's only 7 gallons. Call it $3.50 per gallon, so the fuel cost for a pound of payload is only about $25-$50. It's truly negligible compared to the cost of the rocket, whose costs are tied mainly literally to paperwork, due to the very tight margins on the factors of safety. The rest of the equilibrium cost is going to be amortizing that rocket over as many launches as is responsible.

vermontdevil 10y ago
Musk has often said that the first stage is 70% of the cost. And that the fuel cost are negligible.
Robotbeat 10y ago
Even less than that for ITS. The tanker version of ITS is supposed to (eventually) achieve about $9/kg to orbit, with $4 of that being the cost of the propellant. Or, about $2 per pound for the propellant (if you want to use barbarous units).

Robotbeat 10y ago

Not much at first. 30%, perhaps. But as reuse is tweaked, more things are recovered, less refurbishment needed, things can get really cheap. Ultimately, SpaceX wants to get the cost to orbit for propellant down to about $9/kg. From the current $10,000 to $2000 per kg. For propellant launches on ITS, which will be larger and will have the booster land on the launch cradle and have the upperstage be fully reusable: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.p... (based on figures given on page 36 and 41) $9/kg is ridiculously cheap ($4/pound). 3 orders of magnitude cheaper than current costs. More general payloads will cost more (due to processing requirements), but that gives you an idea. The idea is you reduce the cost of the launch to about twice the cost of the propellant. The only way that's feasible is rapid reuse and by launching a lot. Also, ITS will use the cheapest source of energy today: methane. Can also be synthesized from air, water, and sunlight as SpaceX is planning on Mars. The energy costs of achieving orbit is about the same energy costs as flying around the world, for the same payload. So it's not, in principle, absurdly expensive (relative to current per-person energy usage) just from an energy point of view to fly stuff to orbit.