3 ms·

Sure, the government based space missions won't use SpaceX. That's a non-issue. SpaceX's launch manifest is filled with ~70% commercial customers anyways from

by Denzel 9y ago

Sure, the government based space missions won't use SpaceX. That's a non-issue. SpaceX's launch manifest is filled with ~70% commercial customers anyways from the likes of: France, Japan, China, Canada, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Malaysia. They're eating commercial launches for breakfast and putting huge pressure on Arianespace, ILS, and ULA. And they haven't even begun to reap the full cost savings of reusable rockets. No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up.

babyrainbow 9y ago
>No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up. How will a couple of blown rockets affect this plan?
- Denzel 9y ago
  Time will show whether that happens, no? SpaceX has been methodically derisking. We're 10 days out from the 2nd launch and landing of a previously flown Block 3 rocket. Their 1st relaunch and landing ended with a happy customer. Customers seem to have no problem lining up for reusable rockets already.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >Time will show whether that happen Why not wait till that before getting all hyped up. Isn't this exactly what the article criticizes?
    - Denzel 9y ago
      They've already made historical accomplishments several times over. To each their own hype.
GuB-42 9y ago
90% reduction? Seems ridiculous to me. This number probably come from the fact that 9 out of 10 engines can be recovered, the last engine being in the disposable second stage. But even if we only talk about the engines, it completely disregards refurbishment costs. And there are many other things that won't get recovered besides the second stage engine, like the rest of the second stage, fuel, LOX, helium, launch infrastructure and preparation costs. Parts fail and need to be replaced, and let's not forget the risk of a failed launch or recovery. To allow a 10x cost reduction, they also need to be 10x more reliable. The reality is more about a 40% cost reduction goal, still great.

by Denzel 9y ago

babyrainbow 9y ago

>No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up. How will a couple of blown rockets affect this plan?

Denzel 9y ago
Time will show whether that happens, no? SpaceX has been methodically derisking. We're 10 days out from the 2nd launch and landing of a previously flown Block 3 rocket. Their 1st relaunch and landing ended with a happy customer. Customers seem to have no problem lining up for reusable rockets already.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  >Time will show whether that happen Why not wait till that before getting all hyped up. Isn't this exactly what the article criticizes?
  - Denzel 9y ago
    They've already made historical accomplishments several times over. To each their own hype.

GuB-42 9y ago

90% reduction? Seems ridiculous to me. This number probably come from the fact that 9 out of 10 engines can be recovered, the last engine being in the disposable second stage. But even if we only talk about the engines, it completely disregards refurbishment costs. And there are many other things that won't get recovered besides the second stage engine, like the rest of the second stage, fuel, LOX, helium, launch infrastructure and preparation costs. Parts fail and need to be replaced, and let's not forget the risk of a failed launch or recovery. To allow a 10x cost reduction, they also need to be 10x more reliable. The reality is more about a 40% cost reduction goal, still great.