4 ms·
They've stated in the past that the reused rockets are offered at a 10% discount, of a launch price of around 60 million. But that's expected to widen consider
by peeters 9y ago
They've stated in the past that the reused rockets are offered at a 10% discount, of a launch price of around 60 million. But that's expected to widen considerably, for now there's basically no competition and they're still ramping up production and launch capabilities (and are wanting to recoup their investment).
- imron 9y agoYep, I was talking about a point in the future when their first stages have all seen significant reuse.
- sand500 9y agoDon't forget that customers get bumped used in the schedule by quite a bit by agreeing to ride a re used rocket. The extra income from having a sat in space early is much more valuable.
- imron 9y agoAt the moment people are wary of putting payload on a reused rocket. There will soon come a tipping point of being wary of using a rocket that hasn't been flown before.
- sand500 9y agoYeah exactly but earlier launches is a bigger incentive then a discount.
- kuschku 9y agoBut that will take a long time, even with new Falcon 9 rockets, SpaceX is an order of magnitude less reliable than Ariane, for now. At exactly the same price. Long term, the only viable competitors of SpaceX include Ariane and Blue Origin.
- nickik 9y agoAriane is already not competitive at the moment, and the reliable is not that different. Look at the insurance premium and its clear that the estimated reliability is not that large. They have massively exhilarated Ariane 6 because they know they simply can not compete with the Ariane 5. Also Ariane is only a viable competitor because they don't need to compete on cost. If Arianespace had to finance the Ariane 6 by themselves they would not be close to competing with SpaceX. Blue Origin prices are unknown so far.
- kuschku 9y agoFor a small to medium size satellite, Ariane is actually currently 2 million USD per launch cheaper than SpaceX. Around 60 vs. 62 million. And you get an order of magnitude better reliability. This might change in the next years, but for now, it's not changing.
- greglindahl 9y agoInterestingly enough, if you look at the Ariane manifest you can see that they're having a hard time finding satellites to fly in the "lower berth". Meanwhile, SpaceX's comsat launches are mostly heavier sats that won't fit into the "lower berth".
- kuschku 9y agoYes, it’s especially interesting how basically all of the smaller satellite launches have moved to the – at the moment – more expensive and less reliable SpaceX, leaving Ariane without small satellites to launch.
- greglindahl 9y agoYou have it backwards. Most of SpaceX's commercial comsat launches are big enough that Ariane would charge 90 million euros to launch.
- falcolas 9y agoI'm curious if that discount offsets the increased insurance premiums on the payload(s). Given the increased risk (2/2 successful launches doesn't mean much in the bigger scheme of things) it seems to me that insurance providers wouldn't be keen on insuring such payloads when it's already the riskiest part of the payload's lifetime (with an average 7% failure rate).
- wolf550e 9y agoSES said the insurance of SES-10 cost the same as on a never flown booster. The Falcon 9 (all versions) is currently 33.5/36, and as long as SpaceX never repeat the same cause for the loss of payload, the insurers don't mind flight proven boosters.